The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of each of the instant crimes, was in a state where the ability to discern things or make a decision was weak due to the depression at the time of the instant crimes, and thus, the sentence should be mitigated, but the lower court erred by rejecting the Defendant’s assertion to that effect.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant claiming unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment for six months, the suspension of execution for one year, and the suspension of education for violent treatment for forty hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the medical certificate submitted by the Defendant at the lower court, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view the Defendant at the time of each of the instant crimes to have been in a state of mental or physical disability or mental disability, in light of the following: (a) although the Defendant appears to have been diagnosed by the emotional distress around August 2019; (b) the details and process of each of the instant crimes, the means and methods of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crimes, etc., which were lawfully adopted and investigated by the lower court.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in a thorough manner with the record, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. (Although the original court’s use of the defendant’s written intent as its basis is not appropriate to the extent that it is not directly related to the defendant’s state of mental or physical disability at the time of each of the crimes in this case, the judgment of the court below is justified and it does not affect its conclusion, and it does not affect the conclusion as argued by the defendant.)

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 23. 7.