The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as a person with a disability of class 2 with intellectual disability, failed to have the ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to the impergical stability mechanism and the weak effect of water exemption in order to treat mentally ill persons and impergies at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disability, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of determination of misapprehension of legal principles as to mental disability, the fact that the defendant is a person with a disability of class 2 in intellectual disability can be recognized.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and other circumstances such as the situation before and after the crime of this case, and the defendant's attitude and behavior before and after the crime of this case, it is not deemed that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to intellectual disorder at the time of each crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles concerning mental illness is without merit.

The defendant committed multiple crimes in a short period, and is relatively memory of the circumstances and contents of the crime.

The defendant used the drugs prescribed for the mitigation of mental disorders as a tool for committing a crime.

B. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are as follows: (a) the Defendant made a confession of all of the instant crimes while making a decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing; (b) the injury is relatively minor; (c) partial recovery; and (d) the Defendant has intellectual disabilities.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case from the date of completion of the execution of punishment sentenced for the same kind of crime, and committed several crimes within the short term, and committed the same kind of crime.