All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was under a state of mental disability with weak ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to the following reasons: (a) the Defendant was under a state of mental disorder with weak capacity to discern things; (b) the sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's mental suffering claim, the defendant is well aware that he/she has committed any crime by any means, and that his/her act also constitutes a crime. In light of the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the background leading to the crime of this case, the means and methods of the crime, and the conduct before and after the crime, it does not seem that the defendant did not have reached a state where he/she lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, such as summons, etc. at the time of the crime of this case.

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

3. Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015.