The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to symptoms of catherosis.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the Korean Medical Association presented a reply to the fact-finding on the relationship with the symptoms of low blood transfusion and the theft habits of this court, “The Korean Medical Association may cause confusion and confusion due to low blood transfusion, but due to that, it would be extremely rare in cases where the theft habit is caused, and most of it would be accompanied by symptoms, such as confusions to the extent that confusions may occur, and it would be very difficult to commit the theft because most of it would be accompanied by symptoms, such as the disorder of a sense of cut-off exercise.”

In full view of the circumstances after the crime of this case, including the background, means and methods of the crime of this case, statements made to investigation agencies, and various circumstances indicated in the records of this case, the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder at the time of the crime of this case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is not accepted.

B. Although the amount of damages for the wrongful assertion of sentencing is small, in full view of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime since not only had been punished six times as a thief prior to the instant crime, but also two months have passed since the execution of the sentence was completed, and that there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, as it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing is not accepted.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.