The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to a disease with a mental divided disease and a stimulative disorder.

B. The fact that there was a mental illness at the time of each of the instant crimes against the criminal defendant, the confession of all of the crimes, and the fact that he/she is going against the punishment, and that he/she is gathering old age and has the same effect without committing further crimes.

Considering the fact that the sentencing of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental disorder and the written mental appraisal prepared by the Director of the Medical Care and Custody Center at the trial, the Defendant’s intellectual ability is the level of delay in the spirit of the Do, and even from August 2012 to the time of each of the instant crimes, the fact that the Defendant was receiving medical treatment due to a remaining mental disorder, chinein’s disease, bipolartic disorder, bipolartic disorder, mixed apprehension, and depression disorder, etc., may not be deemed to have reached a weak level of the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's appeal.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing, the first sentencing judgment is maintained as it is.