The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant, who has lost mental or physical disorder or mental disorder of the grounds for appeal, was unable to discern things or make decisions due to mental problems at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

The sentencing (three years of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the results of the judgment conducted before the court below on the assertion of mental or physical loss or mental weakness, although the recognition function of the defendant is below average as a result of the intelligence examination on the defendant, it does not seem to have any significant degree of perception function deterioration or qualitative damage to the degree of recognition, and it does not appear to be a relatively low level in terms of caution and caution concentration, geographical structure, spatial standing, etc., or a relatively low level in terms of difficulty in daily life (see, e.g., the 58th page of the trial record), even if examining records, the defendant was in a state where he lost his ability to distinguish things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime of this case, or where he was in a state of lacking such ability.

There is no circumstance to consider.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the sentencing is decided within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors that are conditions for the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing, it is deemed unfair to maintain the first-class sentencing judgment as it is.