The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant, with the third disability of mental retardation, was unable to properly discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental and physical weakness, according to ① the CCTV images at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant returned to the scene of the crime and colored the object of the crime, which is not significantly different from the normal person. ② In the case of the mental retardation of the Do, even though the development speed is lower than the normal person, the Defendant was at the speed of his own development, but was achieved full self-reliance in terms of the face and real life, and domestic technology, and the Defendant was on duty after receiving KRW 78,00 per day from the construction site (38 pages of the evidence record), ③ the Defendant was placed in the victim’s speech as to the location where the prosecutor was on the wall at the time of the investigation, and the Defendant was not in front of the victim’s speech, but in front of the victim’s speech.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant made a statement at the time of committing the instant crime, and the fact that there was a fact that it was a fall short of the thief in the course of larceny, and that there was no such fact, the victim was no longer the victim, and that there was no such fact, it does not seem that the Defendant did not seem to have reached a state where he had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the mental delay

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

B. Determination of the illegality of sentencing did not amount to KRW 77,00,000, and both the Defendant’s thefted money were returned to the victim and the damage was recovered.

The defendant seems to repeat the theft crime in a poor environment.

On the other hand, the defendant was punished about 10 times for larceny crimes, including eight times of imprisonment.