The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel stated in the initial appellate brief the grounds for appeal on the grounds of appeal by misunderstanding the legal principles as to unfair sentencing and mental and physical weakness, and stated only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal at the first trial date of the trial of the first instance.

After that, in the statement of argument submitted after the closing date of the argument at the trial court, there is a assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles on the mental and physical weakness in addition to the sentencing unfair, and misunderstanding of the legal principles on the mental and physical weakness is also considered as the ground of appeal.

Although the Defendant had been in a state of mental and physical weakness due to stimulative disorder at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical weakness, thereby failing to recognize it.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, process, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, etc., revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to stimulative disorder or mental disorder at the time of the instant crime, and therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is without merit.

B. The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case as the crime of this case and against the mistake, the fact that the defendant should receive treatment due to the stimulative disorder, the court below agreed with the victim K, L, and the victim D and I deposited KRW 1 million each to the victim D and I, and the fact that the defendant additionally deposited KRW 500,000 for the victim D and I in the first instance trial, are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is a case in which the defendant deceivings the victims and defrauds the pecuniary profits such as the length of 4,820,000 won or the meal cost.