The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of preventing the instant crime.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, on the assertion of mental disorder, found the Defendant committed the instant crime in the state that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness caused by the depression of heavy evidence and the increase of the military register wall, which was caused by the decline in the impulse ability.

The recognition was recognized.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, means and methods of larceny by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the commission of the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have an ability to discern things or make decisions beyond the mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the instant crime. Therefore, the argument that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss is rejected.

B. Although the Defendant had been punished several times for the same thief crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the same thief as the previous thief in 10 months after being released from prison after having completed the 10-month execution, and committed the instant crime on July 2016.

However, the Defendant committed the larceny of this case in a state that the Defendant committed the larceny of this case while having weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness caused by the depression of heavy evidence, and the increase of military register walls caused by the decline in impulse control capacity, and most victims have agreed with the Defendant.