All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 is physically and mentally deprived or mentally weak at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak at the time of the instant crime. As such, punishment should be mitigated or exempted.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The mental disorder stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act regarding the Defendant’s claim for mental disorder requires not only mental disorder such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, but also mental disorder such as mental disorder lack or decrease in the ability to discern things or control action accordingly. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder was a person with normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, such mental disorder cannot be deemed a mental disorder if he/she had the ability to discern things or control action (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1425, Aug. 18, 192, etc.). In light of various circumstances, such as the background, means, and the behavior of the Defendant before and after the commission of each of the instant crimes, which are duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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

B. The Defendant’s argument that the sentencing of the Defendant and the Prosecutor was unfair is against the Defendant’s intent to commit each of the crimes of this case, and the fact that each of the larceny crimes of this case was committed in an attempted attempt, or that a majority of the damaged goods was returned to the victims is favorable to the Defendant.

However, each of the crimes of this case was committed by the defendant by intrusioning on his residence at night over eight times, and the crime of this case was committed by assaulting or injuring the victim for the purpose of evading arrest two times, and the nature of the crime is very poor.