The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. From December 23, 2015 to the recent date, the Defendant, who was physically and mentally weak, was under medical treatment due to mental division from around December 23, 2015, such as exchange, damage, apprehension, and influence. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the instant case’s determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, it is recognized that the Defendant had continuously received mental and medical treatment after having been admitted to the Ansan Prison on April 19, 2012; on September 12, 2012, he/she was diagnosed with other productive disorder; on December 23, 2015, from December 23, 2015 to May 10, 2017, he/she received a diagnosis of symptoms, such as refund, damage, apprehension, uneasiness, and unexplosion; and on other grounds, he/she has been prescribed by mental and medical drugs due to other mental fissions.

However, in light of the following: (a) the motive and background of the instant crime, the means and method of the instant crime; (b) the frequency of the commission of the crime; (c) the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime; and (d) the Defendant has repeatedly committed a crime such as obstruction of duties, damage to property, injury, attack, retaliation, etc. only against the same victim; (b) the Defendant continued to engage in a prison life while living in prison; and (c) the content of intimidation is very specific and diverse, and the intent of intimidation is consistent, the Defendant was in a state that he lacks the ability to discern things at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Since the above argument is not visible, it is rejected.

B. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are as follows: (a) the Defendant appears to have been recognized as a substitute for and against the offense; and (b) the fact that the Defendant does not repeat the same offense.

(b).