The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, ought to be mitigated since he/she was mentally ill-incompetent at the time of the crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the claim of mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act, the mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act is a biological element and needs to be judged to be lacking or reduced in the ability to distinguish things and to control action accordingly, as a psychological element, other than mental disorder such as mental disorder or abnormal mental condition. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, if he/she had the ability to distinguish things or control action, he/she cannot be deemed a mental disorder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7900, Feb. 8, 2007). In full view of the evidence and records duly adopted and examined, the defendant cannot be deemed to have lacking the ability or decision-making ability to discern things at the time of committing the crime in this case

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Although the Defendant recognized the crime, a drug crime requires strict punishment even if it was not administered once considering the social harm and injury, the Defendant has a number of criminal records, including a series of narcotics crimes, and the instant case was committed only after the completion of punishment due to the same drug crime, and the materials submitted by the Defendant at the trial alone do not seem to have a significant reason to change the sentencing of the lower court, and otherwise, the Defendant’s age and health.