The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal, mentally ill-incompetent and the sentencing of a person (one year in prison);

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the judgment on the claim of mental retardation, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was in a state of being taken in the state at the time of the crime of this case, and that the defendant was hospitalized and received outpatient treatment due to a mental disorder such as depression, etc. in the past, but it cannot be deemed that there was an obstacle to the defendant's ability to distinguish the object or make a decision in light of the method and frequency of the crime of this case, the defendant

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. In light of the subject matter of the instant crime, method and circumstances, etc., the Defendant’s liability for the crime is heavy in light of the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same kind of violent crime, and the fact that the Defendant made a confession of each of the instant crimes when the Defendant was in the trial, and that the victim expressed his intention not to punish, etc., the amount of the punishment imposed by the lower court is acceptable in full view of all the circumstances, including the past’s history of punishment for the same kind of violent crime, and the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is no ground to believe

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

On the other hand, Article 39-17 (1) and (2) of the Welfare of Older Persons Act provides that when a court declares a sentence of punishment or medical treatment and custody for a crime related to elder abuse, it shall impose an employment restriction order to operate an institution related to older persons for a certain period not exceeding 10 years, or to provide employment or actual labor to an institution related to older persons at the same time with a judgment of a crime related to elder abuse. However, in cases where the risk of recidivism is considerably low or any special circumstance that does not restrict employment is determined, the employment restriction order may not

Therefore, the court of original judgment imposes an employment restriction order on the defendant under the Welfare of Older Persons Act.