The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The argument contained in the Defendant’s written application dated November 23, 2018, which was submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds of appeal for the grounds of appeal elapses, shall be considered to the extent that it supplements the above grounds of appeal.

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was suffering from ordinary fluoral disease at the time of committing the instant crime, and symptoms of fluoral fluoral fluoral disease showed the symptoms of mental disorder or

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won of fine, 24 hours of order to complete a program, and 2 years of employment restriction order) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the court’s evidence duly adopted and examined, namely, the fact that the Defendant was receiving treatment for mental illness from a divided type mental disorder under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities on October 25, 2018 is recognized as having received the determination of disability grade 3 under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities. On the other hand, the content of the written decision on disability ratings against the Defendant is in a state where the Defendant is in need of sporadic assistance by continuing or repeating friendly symptoms about his personality change or behavior, and it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s act and attitude committed before and after the instant crime, as well as the Defendant’s statement in the investigation agency and the court of the lower court at the time of the instant crime, taking full account of various circumstances such as the background and content of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act and attitude of the Defendant committed the instant crime, and the Defendant’s statement at the court of the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

(However, the circumstance that the defendant suffered from a divided disorder at the time of the crime of this case was considered as an element of sentencing at the court below, and the following is considered.

The sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable and appropriate on the basis of the statutory penalty, taking into account the conditions for the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.