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 emotional distress disorder, etc.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant is against unreasonable sentencing, and that part of the amount of damage was returned to the Victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the trial, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorders at the time of committing the instant crime is justifiable.

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

1) As a result of the mental appraisal of the Defendant in the trial at the trial, the author expressed that “The emotional condition of the Defendant is considered to be a patient with adaptation disorder as a somewhat stable state, which is not a mental disorder, and is not a mentally stable state,” and that “the process of the instant crime was relatively adequate and sound, revealing a sense of meeting and criminal responsibility in light of the content of the accident, and does not seem to have any mental symptoms.” and that “The awareness is clear, sound, and sound and real ability to determine the reality.” 2) The author expressed the opinion that “The present mental condition of the Defendant is considered to be a patient with adaptation disorder as a somewhat stable state, and it is not a mental state, but a chronic symptoms.”

3. The defendant was investigated by the investigative agency several times, and the time of embezzlement with respect to the crime of this case.