The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (mental and physical disorder and improper sentencing) the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical weakness or mental loss due to polar disorder at the time of committing the instant crime (the Defendant, who was discharged from the outbreak of mental illness, was in a state of mental or physical weakness that he did not know about the occurrence of mental illness.

“The Defendant’s argument that the Defendant’s argument of loss of mind and body is also included in the Defendant’s argument, as the lower court has already acknowledged mental and physical weakness at the lower court. The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant can be found to have committed the crime in a state that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, such as physical disorder, etc. at the time of the crime of this case. The court below made a statutory mitigation based on mental and physical weakness on the above grounds.

Meanwhile, in light of the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the developments leading to the instant crime, and the Defendant’s behavior, etc. revealed by the record, the Defendant was in a physical and mental state beyond the physical and mental weak condition acknowledged by the lower court.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder 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.

The data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing review are assessed or presented.