The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant committed the instant crime in the state of mental disorder where he was unable to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, such as a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not punish the Defendant, even though the first instance court did not have to punish the Defendant, by recognizing only the state of mental disorder, and convicted the Defendant of the lower judgment by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that the Defendant was in a state of weak ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to mental illness, such as shock disorder, military register disorder, and depression at the time of committing the instant crime is recognized.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the Defendant had been punished more than 20 times for larcenys in the past, and the Defendant already knew that there was impulses that he would have been aware of that he want to steals from the perspective of amnestys, etc., and that it was stolen by shocks between the net impulses, and that it was difficult to punish the Defendant on the grounds that he discarded the amnestys to his wife immediately after committing the crime, by viewing that he had an opportunity to see the situation in order to cause damage to the employees of large retailers.

In full view of the background leading to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., including the fact that the Defendant stated that the commission of the thief was an unbrupted mind for his children, and that it was well aware of the meaning and impact of his act, the Defendant is due to shock disorder, military register barriers, eustosis, etc.