The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of defendant's grounds for appeal: Unfair sentencing;

2. As to the judgment on the grounds of appeal (1) as to the mental illness, such as “defensive disorder,” etc., the circumstance where a crime was committed due to failure to suppress one’s impulse is likely to be found even to be a normal person. Barring special circumstances, it cannot be said that a person with the above character defect requires an act that is not expected to control one’s impulse and require compliance with the law, barring special circumstances, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that, in principle, the same character defect as “defensive disorder” does not constitute a mental disorder, which is the grounds of reduction or exemption of punishment.

However, even if a defect of the same nature as a shock disorder is so serious that it can be assessed to be equal to a person with an original mental disorder due to its serious seriousness, the crime resulting therefrom shall be deemed to be a crime for mental disorder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1541 Decided May 24, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867 Decided February 26, 2009, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the materials submitted during the oral proceedings of this case, the defendant was found to have received hospital treatment due to symptoms, such as “component disorder and symptoms of depression disorder,” but there is no evidence to support the fact that the symptoms have reached the degree of being deemed to be equal to those with “component illness within the original meaning” due to the very serious degree of symptoms. However, according to the above materials, according to the above materials, the defendant was investigated after the occurrence of the crime of this case, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the defendant had received hospital treatment due to symptoms, such as “component disorder disorder and symptoms of depression disorder.”

Therefore, only the above symptoms with the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case.

It is difficult to view that there was or was a weak state.

(2) Other reasons for sentencing are as above.