beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant suffered from mental illness at the time of the instant crime, and the lower court neglected this point in spite of the state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol. The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact about mental disorder, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant's physical and mental disorder can be acknowledged as having the ability to discern things at the time of committing the instant crime, and the defendant's drinking at the time of committing the instant crime. However, in light of all circumstances, such as the background and method of committing the instant crime, the defendant's act before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the defendant's mental and physical disorder cannot be accepted.
B. On September 9, 201, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, namely, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and four months for the crime of fraud, crime of interference with business, and obstruction of performance of official duties at the Daegu District Court on March 23, 201 to the end of the execution of the above sentence, and thereby, committed the instant crime again at least two to three months, and the Defendant committed the instant crime again; the Defendant was punished on seven occasions (two times of imprisonment with prison labor, five times of fines) and other records of punishment for the same crime are more than five times (five times of fine). In light of the criminal records of the Defendant, the Defendant’s criminal records are highly likely to have high risk of repeating a crime; the Defendant’s attitude of accepting the Defendant and the investigative agency’s attitude seems to have been very poor.