All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit in the original judgment, the defendant bears the costs of witness.

The main reason for appeal by the defendant is that the punishment prescribed by the court of the original instance (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In addition, the defendant should be subject to punishment or mitigation due to mental disorder, and the judgment of the court below which overlooked it is illegal.

The reason for the prosecutor's appeal is that the court below's punishment is too unfluent and unfair.

Judgment

As to the wrongful argument of sentencing between the defendant and the prosecutor, the defendant led to a confession of crime.

Recently, there has been a submission of rebuttals.

Before the instant case, it is also considered that there was almost little history of criminal punishment and that there was a mental disease.

However, it is not very important to consider violence and non-prosecution of property damage.

On the other hand, the defendant's liability of causing physical and mental pain to many unspecified people due to a large number of crimes is not easy.

It did not recover from damage.

It also takes into account the fact that this Court has committed the crime continuously before and after the 2017 High Court's 580 trial, and that it has repeatedly violated the rule within the detention house.

The court of the court below rendered the sentence against the defendant by taking account of the aforementioned various positive and negative circumstances.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance that can be considered in sentencing as a result of the sentence.

In addition, in full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, it shall not be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

It is too minor that they are light.

It is also difficult to see it.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is presumed that the defendant had a mental illness at the time of the crime, but there are various records, such as the process and process of the crime in this case, the defendant's behavior