The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, at the time of committing the crime, was unable to discern things or make a decision due to the symptoms such as the damage net, exchange, etc., the lower court recognized only the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness and did not recognize the Defendant’s mental and physical loss.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of mental and physical loss, the Defendant is recognized as having received a long-term mental and physical treatment due to a detailed unknown mental fission.

However, according to the mental appraisal result of the Medical Care and Custody Center, the Defendant was diagnosed to be in a state of "hyeong-do mental and physical weakness" due to mental disorder, unstable character disorder at the time of committing the instant crime. The Defendant specifically stated the motive, circumstance, etc. of the instant crime in an investigative agency. In full view of the background of the instant crime, the means and method of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, it is not recognized that the Defendant had reached a state of loss of his ability to distinguish and make decisions, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion

B. It is recognized that the criminal defendant committed the crime of this case in a state that he recognized all of the crimes of this case, thereby going against the mistake, was subject to long-term pharmacologic treatment due to the unknown mental fission, and caused the crime of this case in a state that he lacks the ability to discern things and make decisions due to symptoms, such as the network, exchange, etc.

However, the Defendant, without any justifiable reason, was released immediately after he was arrested as a flagrant offender, by threatening and imprisoning the victim G with a deadly weapon. Even after the second arrest, the Defendant seems to have committed a crime that damages CCTV, which is a public object, in the detention room, and took the view of the legal order, and even though the victims did not suffer from the damage, the Defendant’s recovery of the damage up to the trial.