The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to depression, depression, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder, the fact that the Defendant received a considerable number of mental diagnosis over a long-term period of time, the fact that the shock disorder and the symptoms of the theft wall have been revealed due to depression, depression, etc. are recognized.

(1) However, even if the defendant was to commit a crime due to a mental defect that does not suppress the impulse of larceny (a mental disorder is expressed in the form of a mental disorder), such phenomenon is merely a matter that can be found in the normal person, and it cannot be said that the defendant's ability to control his impulse and demand compliance with the law to the person who has a character defect unless there are special circumstances, and it cannot be said that the defendant does not have the ability to demand compliance with the law. Thus, in principle, the character defect such as shock disorder does not constitute a mental disorder, which is the cause of reduction or exemption of punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do3163, Feb. 24, 195); ② The defendant's speech-making ability does not have any particular problem; and even if it does not have any special influence on each of the crimes of this case, the defendant has no ability to change things at the time of the crime of this case.

It does not seem to have reached a state of or weakness.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical difficulties cannot be accepted.

3. In comparison with the first instance court's judgment on the Defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance court's sentencing discretion.