The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, such as a personality disorder, a public sulfur disorder, a non-quality disorder, and a divided mobility disorder.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness and a factual reply to the T hospital, the fact that the defendant had been treated with mental disorder from February 2, 2007 to the date of division disorder, etc. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence have been stated as follows: the patient at the Jeju AC Hospital located at the time immediately after the occurrence of each of the crimes in this case stated that the defendant was hospitalized as a mere alcohol addiction, not a mental illness, and the content of each of the crimes in this case cannot be deemed as having caused mental disorder as the defendant's failure of drinking alcohol. In light of the above, the fact that each of the crimes in this case was conducted with mental therapy alone is difficult to view that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant crimes, and the lower court agreed with the victim I at the lower court, and the fact that the said victims did not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim G was favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, in light of the frequency, period, method, etc. of each of the instant crimes, the quality of the crime is not very good, and the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victims of the crime interfering with each of the instant crimes, and did not recover the damage to the victims.