The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental retardation.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the determination of the allegation of mental disorder, the fact that the defendant was somewhat in a drunken state at the time of committing the instant crime is recognized.

However, in light of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined by the lower court, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

It does not seem that there was any or weak state.

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

B. The Defendant appears to have recognized the instant crime and divided the mistake in depth on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

In addition, on October 8, 2014, the Defendant returned to the victims two mobile phones of an amount equivalent to 1.5 million won at the market price of the stolen goods from October 8, 2014 when two days have passed since the instant crime was committed, and only the amount equivalent to 3.10,000 won was not recovered from the damage

In addition, the circumstances should be considered favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant runs away from the age of green and living alone for about 13 years, etc.

However, the crime of this case committed by the defendant was approaching the victims' efforts to work in a multi-section operated and working for the victims during the period of suspension of execution, and then stolen the victims' goods in a multi-speaks from the next day, and the punishment of the unlawful act is not less severe.

In addition, the defendant did not take any particular measures to seek a letter from the victims in addition to the fact that he returned the two mobile phones.

(2).