The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to stimulative disorder.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the defendant is deemed to have been diagnosed as a stimulative disorder and received medical treatment. On the other hand, in light of various circumstances such as the background, method, and behavior of the defendant before and after the crime, the defendant was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above mental disorder at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Even if the Defendant was physically and mentally weak at the time of committing the instant crime

Even if this is merely a ground for voluntary mitigation of punishment, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment on the sole ground that the court below did not grant a statutory mitigation due to mental and physical weakness to the defendant.

shall not be effective.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The lower court determined the punishment of the Defendant in light of the following: although the nature of the instant crime is not good, the Defendant’s reflectiveness, and there was no record of criminal records exceeding the same kind of criminal record or fine.

However, the circumstance that the defendant was suffering from stimulative disorder at the time of the crime of this case is already submitted to the original court before the judgment of the original court, and there is no new change in circumstances to consider the sentencing after the decision of the original court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court.