The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The Defendant committed the instant crime due to an intentional wall due to a defect in impulse impulse ability, and at the time of committing the crime, was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the crime.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below as to the claim of mental disability, the circumstance that the defendant was receiving mental treatment due to a shock disorder between them is acknowledged. However, the court below did not make all the above claim of mental disability, and the defendant tried to steal the car parked in a way that he tried to larceny when he was investigated in the course of the investigation, with daily loss of the vehicle parked in a manner that would have been about to larceny or money, and the defendant made a statement that he was about to take place within the vehicle in the face of the door, and it seems that the situation was relatively clear at the time of the crime of this case, such as the defendant's statement that he was about to take place in the face of the door, and it was thought that it was not possible if it was discovered before the thief, but that the defendant made a statement that he was so that he had been aware that he did not have the ability to change the right or make decision due to shock disorder at the time of the crime of this case, and therefore, the defendant's assertion of mental and physical disability cannot be accepted.

B. It is reasonable to take into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s thief, who made a judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, committed the attempted larceny and did not have any substantial damage; and (b) the Defendant destroyed the entrance of the detention room in a state where he was suffering from physical pain due to the circumstances in which the Defendant

However, the defendant did not go against the probation period due to the same crime, and again commits a second offense, and he has three times the same criminal records.