The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, due to a very low intelligence, was significantly reduced compared to the general public. However, at the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder having weak ability to discern things or make decisions, due to the relationship with the bond business entities and the second financial rights under pressure on performance of a considerable amount of stress.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As can be seen from the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental and physical disorder, comprehensively taking account of the motive and circumstance leading up to the commission of each of the crimes of this case, method of crime, investigation agency and the lower court’s statement, contents and attitude at the trial, the Defendant’s educational background, military service and social history, mental and medical treatment records, the existence of the Defendant’s criminal liability corresponding to the Defendant’s criminal liability for each of the crimes of this case, and the contents of the investigation prior to the request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device, etc., the Defendant’s ability to compensate the Defendant for the corresponding criminal liability is sufficient. On the contrary, each of the crimes of this case committed by the Defendant is concentrated from September 2014 to January 2015.

there are some parts of the Criminal Procedure Act, which are somewhat familiar with the Criminal Procedure Act.

or to the extent that he voluntarily led to the crime under investigation.

or intelligence has difficulties in personal relations because it is lower than the average of the general public.

The circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant was suffering from extreme stress due to pressure on performance of obligations, and the data submitted in addition thereto do not appear to have been in a state of mental disorder having weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant agreed with the victims of each of the instant crimes.