The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was suffering from mental illness of class 3 with intellectual disability, etc. at the time of committing the instant crime.

The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant is deemed to have been in a state that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case due to depression, stimulative disorder, etc. as a disabled person of Grade III with intellectual disability (Therefore, the allegation of mental disorder is without merit). However, on December 18, 2018, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which provides for the necessary mitigation of punishment for the act of a person with mental disorder, has been amended that "the act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, may be mitigated from punishment (Act No. 15982)." Since the crime of this case was committed after the enforcement of the amended Criminal Act, even if the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime, it is not illegal even if the court below did not have legal mitigation due to mental disorder.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the argument of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court in the determination of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). No particular new sentencing data is submitted in the trial, and there is no significant change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court, and there are particular reasons for sentencing revealed during the pleadings in the instant case.