The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The abstract of grounds for appeal (mental disorder and sentencing);

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the crime, was in a state of mental and physical weakness as a result of division.

B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record, the first instance trial on the assertion of mental and physical disorder is deemed to have been aware of the fact that the Defendant was under the diagnosis of class 3 of the 1994, and took drugs. However, in light of various circumstances such as the background of each of the instant crimes, the method and method of the crime, and the conduct before and after the crime, the Defendant was in the state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to the mental fission, etc. at the time of the instant crime.

The defendant's mental disorder was rejected on the ground that it does not appear.

A thorough review of the first deliberation judgment by comparison with the evidence, the first deliberation judgment is just and acceptable, and therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. Of the damaged goods to be judged on the unfair argument of sentencing, the fact that some of the damaged goods were returned to restore the damage or that the crime was committed and there is no substantial damage due to the attempted crime, and that the Defendant’s mistake is divided into one’s own mistake is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed at night by destroying another person's dwelling or structure and thus the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant commits the crime of this case again during the repeated crime period of the same crime, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be particularly considered when it comes to the depth of the same crime, as well as other various circumstances such as the defendant's age, sex, conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view that the first instance court's sentence is unfair because it is too too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the above sentencing is unfair is reasonable.