The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of the grounds for appeal (defendants)

A. Since the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of shock disorder caused by a physiological wall, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

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

Judgment

A. The phenomenon where a person commits a crime because he/she was unable to suppress his/her impulse of judgment as to the claim of mental disability is likely to find out much for the normal person. Barring special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the person with the above character defect requires an act that is not expected to restrain his/her impulse and to demand compliance with the Act, barring special circumstances. Thus, in principle, defects such as shock disorder do not constitute mental disorder, which is the cause of reduction or exemption of punishment, unless they are so serious that they can be evaluated as equal to the original meaning of mental illness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009; 201Do531, Mar. 10, 2011). The lower court and the first instance court were lawfully admitted to the evidence, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the investigation agency that the Defendant was unable to present his/her cellular phone at the time of the crime, etc., and the Defendant stated in the specific and detailed circumstances and detailed statement of the present situation at the time of the crime.