The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of each of the larcenys in this case, the Defendant was in a state of having no ability to discern things or make decisions due to diseases such as military register walls due to shock and shock disorder, etc., and thus, the lower court did not recognize it. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the defect of mental health, or by misapprehending the fact, thereby adversely affecting

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of all the circumstances, such as the circumstance leading up to the larceny of each of the larceny of this case, the method and method of the crime, the defendant's criminal conduct before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder was revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is determined that the defendant did not have committed a situation where the defendant was in the absence of ability to discern things or make decisions due to diseases in the military register caused by shock disorder at the time of each of the larceny of this case.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's ground of appeal.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant had a record of having been sentenced six times to punishment for the larceny crime, and in particular, the Defendant constitutes a repeated crime again committing the instant crime within three months from the date on which the term of punishment has been terminated due to habitual larceny crime.

In addition, even on the day when the defendant was indicted for habitual larceny under paragraph (1) of the decision of the court below, he commits the larceny under paragraphs (2) and (3) of the decision of the court below, and even while being tried in this case, it is not good that he commits the larceny under paragraphs (4) and (5) of the decision of the court below, and the nature of such crime

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected his mistake.

The defendant is a mental or physical disability of military register barriers due to impulse impulse disorder, etc.