The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The Defendant alleged mental illness was receiving treatment due to liveral symptoms, depression, etc. after a high school was performed on the brain side due to an accident. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability where it is difficult for the Defendant to conduct an appraisal of a arbitrative disorder and a arbitrative disorder.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of committing each of the instant crimes in a normal state.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of determination on the claim of mental disability, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes, in light of various circumstances, including the situation at the time of each of the instant crimes, the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s commission of the instant crimes, the method of committing the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s act committed before and after the instant crimes, even though the Defendant was under operation and hospitalized treatment at a hospital due to an external cerebral cerebriform in 2009 due to a traffic accident, etc., and was in a state of undermining impulse ability due to symptoms and depression.

B. The Defendant conspired with A to determine the allegation of unfair sentencing, committed two times in collusion with A to commit the crime of special larceny, robbery, robbery, injury by robbery, and special robbery during a short period of time, and the injury by robbery was inflicted on the victim by using a deadly weapon, and thus is highly likely to social criticism. The Defendant committed the larceny even before committing each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant committed the larceny at a disadvantage to the Defendant.

On the other hand, each of the special larceny crimes of this case is not relatively significant, and victims of special larceny and larceny do not want to be punished by the defendant, and most of the victims of each of the crimes of this case are victims.