The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts of the crime indicated in the judgment below, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions by taking advantage of the ability to discern things and make decisions by taking advantage of the climatic drugs at the time of committing each special robbery listed in Article 2013 Highly Ma177-1(2) of the Act (hereinafter “the crime of special robbery with each deadly weapons of this case”).

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not lose the ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to the operation of each of the dangerous weapons in this case, the Defendant did not seem to have lost the ability to discern things, or did not lack such ability. (A) As a result of the lower court’s mental appraisal at the lower court on the Defendant, the result showed that “the Defendant did not seem to have a clear consciousness, have an average level of intelligence (i.e., I Qu97), and (ii) did not seem to have a sense, i.e., e., exchange or exploitation, and that the judgment ability for the case and things is good.”

B) At the time of committing a special robbery with each of the instant deadly weapons, the Defendant expressed the view that “The Defendant appears to have committed a crime under the situation where he did not suppress impulses by combined impact on the boundary line personality inclinations (fences that have become final and conclusive as a person with a personality disorder) and alcohol consumption, but is presumed not to have a mental disorder, such as a systematic net or related accident, etc.).” (C) The Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency on the special robbery with each of the instant deadly weapons. The Defendant made a relatively small memory with detailed contents about the special robbery with each of the instant deadly weapons. The Defendant committed a special robbery with each of the instant deadly weapons.