The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant habitual larceny, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability due to an impossible habitor and impulse disorder.

B. Even if not, the lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant had a mental disorder at the time of committing habitual larceny with the same content as that of this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected this part of the Defendant’s assertion in its application column of statutes among the judgment. In line with the record of this case, the lower court did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the impossibility of specific recidivism and shock at the time of committing habitual larceny.

The judgment of the court below that the defendant did not appear to have been either or weak, is just, and this part of the defendant's assertion is not justified.

B. The judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is that the defendant recognized both the crime of this case and reflected his mistake, agreed with part of the victim of larceny, that the amount of damage caused by the crime of larceny is not relatively significant, that the disability of the defendant affected a certain degree of habitual larceny, and that the victim voluntarily withdraws the complaint by agreement with the victim of assault in the trial, etc., in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, or the fact that the defendant habitually stolen another person's goods during the period of repeated larceny, even though the defendant had had had had had had had had had had had been punished several times for the same kind of crime prior to the crime, and that the circumstances after the crime are not good, such as assaulting another person who has witnessed the larceny crime, and that damage is not completely recovered, and that the court below has already