beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical weakness (as to the robbery No. 2017 Gohap93, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to depression, etc. at the time of committing the instant crime.
The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on this point, holding that the defendant was not in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime, in light of the circumstance and contents of the crime of this case, the means and methods of the crime, and the defendant's behavior and attitude that can be known in the victim's statement, even though it was recognized that the defendant had been treated with the above symptoms since 2013.
In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified.
The defendant's assertion disputing this is not accepted.
2. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and where the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that the new materials of sentencing were not submitted in the instant case.
In addition, in full view of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings, including the fact that the defendant stolen, stolen, and stolen the bank of the victim H, and committed robbery to the victim D, and that the crime of robbery seems to have been committed with considerable physical and mental impulses, etc., the victims among various sentencing factors in the instant case are not wanting to be punished by the defendant, and that there is no criminal conviction exceeding the fine of the defendant, etc., the court below’s sentence against the defendant is more favorable to the defendant.