The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The Defendant, with mental illness, was unable to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the claim of mental disability as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act, the mental disorder as stipulated under the provision of Article 10 of the Criminal Act requires that the mental disorder, such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, other than mental disorder, was lacking or reduced in the ability to discern things or control action accordingly. Thus, even if a person with mental disability was a person with normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, the mental disorder cannot be deemed as a mental disorder if the person

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12689, Jan. 24, 2013). O hospital doctor P drafted a diagnosis report on August 31, 2020, on the part of the Defendant, on the clinical presumption of the detailed unknown injury.

(Evidence) The defendant stated at an investigative agency that "it is true that young male wanted to be frighten from the train and to be frighten, with the desire to be frighten from the train," and that "it is true that there is any f5 pages of evidence record)" and "the defendant knows that if he wishes to do so at the victim's shop two times or two times or more, it would be a threat to the victim and will be interfere with the business and will be punished for it." (Evidence No. 100 of evidence record), "I am used as a frighter, which was displayed on the board board because of its nature and displayed on the board board, and desire to fright to be frighten," and he knows that he was punished for his behavior, such as his behavior, and he also knew that he was punished for his behavior."