The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes under the condition of mental disorder due to mental disorder.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness does not seem to have reached a state where the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorders at the time of each of the instant crimes, such as the following: (a) the background and means of the instant crimes, the means of the instant crimes, and the clothes that the Defendant incurred while escaping from the crime by dividing them into three places; (b) the Defendant throw away excessive appearance of the crime into the parking lot; and (c) the Defendant made a statement to a certain degree of memory in the process of the crime; and (d) the Defendant made a statement to a certain extent.

The decision was determined.

In light of the fact that the defendant planned and prepared a robbery in advance, the process of the crime, and the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder at the time of the crime, etc., the defendant was lacking in the ability to discern things or make decisions.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Unlike others, there is no evidence or circumstance to recognize the contents of mental disorders, such as the Defendant's depression or wall, and the gravity of the disease.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified.

B. The Defendant had attempted to withdraw the property from the elderly female victims after purchasing a deadly weapon in advance and returning it to the female clothes prepared in advance.

The crime of robbery is not good by planning in advance to commit robbery, and the criminal liability is also hot, such as taking deadly weapons and taking a strong withdrawal of property.

In addition, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case again, since one month has not elapsed since he completed punishment due to habitual larceny.