The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The Defendant was treated as a mentally ill person of Grade III with intellectual disability in 2010 after the surgery for cerebral blood in 2010, and the Defendant was treated as a mentally ill person at the time of each of the instant crimes.

(b) Original decision: Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion of mental disability was also the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion based on various circumstances.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the judgment of the court below is justifiable, and the defendant's assertion of mental disability is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing was made that the Defendant’s damage was additionally recovered.

However, on November 30, 2017, the defendant was sentenced to two months of imprisonment for fraud by the Incheon District Court for the same crime, and on January 18, 2018, the execution of the sentence was completed, and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case at several times in Incheon District Court and Seoul Southern District Court even though he was sentenced to several fines, and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case at several times in addition, even though he was sentenced to several penalties at the Incheon District Court and Seoul Southern District Court, and the defendant seems to have a very low compliance consciousness, and the possibility of repeating the crime seems to be very low, it is necessary to reduce the above dampness through treatment inside the facility rather than return to society as soon as possible. Considering all of the sentencing factors of this case, considering the sentencing factors of the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too excessive, and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.