The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal 1) In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant suffered from mental illness, such as shock disorder, decentralization disorder, and depression at the time of committing the instant crime, and suffered mental and physical weakness.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of this case regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the fact that the defendant suffered from mental illness, such as normal impulse impulse, decentralization, decentralization, and depression, is recognized.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

① On October 2016, the day immediately before the instant crime was committed, the Defendant did not have received a mental diagnosis and treatment (see, e.g., Supreme Court records 40-41th day of the trial record). ② The Defendant stated that, immediately after the instant crime was committed, the Defendant was provided with a mental diagnosis and treatment on October 26, 2016, that there was no significant inconvenience for the medical doctor (see, e.g., Supreme Court records 41th day of the trial record), and that, on November 2, 2016, the Defendant stated that there was no inconvenience for the medical doctor to mentally and mentally (see, e.g., Supreme Court records 43th day of the trial record). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion

2) The lower court sentenced the Defendant to four months of imprisonment, taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

In full view of the facts that are the conditions for sentencing in the trial, and, in particular, the Defendant was not aware of and again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated offense due to violent crimes, and the sentencing guidelines, the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

There is no circumstance that it is unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

In addition, the age, sex, environment, circumstances and results of the crime of the defendant, and the crime.