The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental disability caused by a man-made disease, but the lower court did not recognize it.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing ( imprisonment for eight months, forfeiture of No. 1, additional collection KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the record of determination on the claim of mental disability, the Defendant is found to have received outpatient medical treatment from around October 10, 2008 to due to editing, modernization, mixed apprehension, and depression disorder in the mental department, and the Defendant is recognized to have received hospitalized treatment at a hospital as an editing and colon’s disease from September 9, 2019 to September 14, 2019. However, in light of the background, means and methods of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had the ability to discern the object at the time of the instant crime or make decisions.

In addition, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which was amended and enforced by Act No. 15982 on December 18, 2018, provides that "the act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, may be mitigated." However, even if the defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder after the enforcement of the amended Criminal Act, it is merely a ground for discretionary mitigation of punishment, and thus, the punishment has not been mitigated on this ground. Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mitigation of mental disorder and disability, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

3. In full view of the facts that the Defendant had four times of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and result of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable and inappropriate.