All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant A (1) is not guilty, or the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below are described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

At the time of committing the crime, the court below neglected the status of the mental disorder or the weak due to the mental fission.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) Although there was no habitor for larceny by misapprehending the legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby recognizing the habituality.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the records on the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A (1) of this case, according to the records on the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A of this case, it is acknowledged that Defendant A of this case had faithfully recovered drugs prescribed by Defendant A of this case from May 2, 2013 to June, 2012. According to the records, it is difficult for Defendant A of this case to think that the crime was committed in a state where he lost or lacks mental and physical awareness, anxiety, etc. due to mental disorder, etc. at the time of the crime, etc. in light of various circumstances indicated in the records, such as the background of the crime and actions before and after the crime, etc., it is not deemed that Defendant A of this case was in a state where he lost or lacks the ability to make a decision, and furthermore, according to the inquiry meeting prepared by the Director General of NN Hospital, Defendant A of this case had faithfully recovered drugs with his intention from May 20 to 6, 2013.

(2) Although Defendant A’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the crime, the victims of partial larceny and those agreed by the lower court constitute favorable sentencing factors, the fact that Defendant A committed each of the instant offenses only one year after release.