The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant did not commit larceny as stated in paragraphs (1) through (3) of the decision of the court below, and the bicycle, as stated in paragraph (4) of the decision of the court below, which the defendant tried to use with a locking device after cutting it, shall not be deemed to constitute larceny as a bicycle owned by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had no or weak mental disability to discern things or make decisions.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant attempted to steal or steal the victim's wallets, cell phones, bicycle, etc. as stated in the judgment below is recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

B. According to the result of the mental appraisal of the defendant at the trial court's judgment on the argument of mental disorder, the defendant is recognized as having mental disorder, such as mental personality disorder, shock disorder, etc.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in light of the circumstances such as the background leading to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, etc., the court below did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above mental disorder at the time of the crime.

The defendant's assertion cannot be accepted as it seems that such an ability has reached a weak state.

C. The victims of this case’s damage on the assertion of unfair sentencing are significant parts.