The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, should be mitigated from punishment on the ground that he/she was in a state of mental disability or mental disability due to mental disorder.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (four months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of mental disorder as provided for in Article 10 of the Criminal Act is a biological element, which requires that mental disorder, such as mental disorder or abnormal mental condition, is lacking or reduced in the ability to distinguish things due to such psychological disorder. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with normal mental disorder or behavior control ability at the time of committing the crime, he cannot be deemed a mental disorder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7900, Feb. 8, 2007). However, even if the defendant received mental therapy, it is recognized that there was a history of receiving mental therapy, and it is recognized that the court below duly adopted and examined the process and method of committing the crime, the behavior and method of the defendant before and after the crime, the defendant's statement attitude of the defendant in an investigative agency and court, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant lacks or reduced the ability to distinguish things at the time of committing the crime in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant’s criminal act itself recognizes as a substitute and reflects the criminal act, and the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant.

However, the defendant.