beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability with mental disorder.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of various circumstances, such as the background, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s statement to the investigative agency, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though the Defendant could recognize the drinking at the time of the instant crime, there was no ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. On April 10, 2013, the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and the victims’ damage amount is relatively small, etc., or the Defendant has a majority of criminal records of the same kind (limited to those sentenced to heavy punishment on six occasions). In particular, on April 10, 2013, the Gwangju District Court stolen the credit card, as in the instant crime of larceny by night room room, and took property benefits equivalent to the drinking value by using it.
In light of the following: (a) imprisonment with prison labor for one year; (b) on August 9, 2013, the same court sentenced each of four months to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of forging private documents; and (c) on April 10, 2014, even if the period of repeated crime was terminated by the Gwangju prison, the Defendant committed the instant crime only one month from the time of release to the time of discharge; and (d) the victims did not recover from damage until the time of the trial; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the background and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too excessive.