The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was suffering from mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court acknowledged that at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of lacking capacity to discern things or make decisions due to the mixed apprehension, depression, etc. and thus, deemed that the Defendant had already been in a state of lacking capacity to discern things or make decisions, and further, whether the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the

In light of the various circumstances indicated in the records of this case, such as the background and method of the crime of this case, and the defendant's act before and after the crime of this case, it cannot be seen that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder beyond the degree of mental disorder at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below which recognized only mental disorder is just, and

B. There are circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized both the instant crime and divided the mistake in depth, that the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder with mental illness, that the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder, that all the victims except the victim M were agreed with the victim M, that the victim M also expressed his/her intent not to want the punishment of the Defendant when investigating the police, that the Defendant received several medical treatment and custody dispositions as mental illness and that the health of the Defendant is not good due to urology, etc.

However, on the other hand, the crime of this case is a case in which the defendant habitually stolens the victim's walletss, titts, glass, etc. using the gap in department stores, etc. more than six times, and the crime of this case is very serious in light of the number of crimes and the frequency of crimes, etc., and the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment several times with prison labor due to the theft of the same law.