A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

A. The Defendant was in the second degree of mental retardation at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in the state of mental retardation or mental retardation by drinking.

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

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the determination on the grounds of appeal, the prosecutor: (a) took ex officio the following facts: (b) “Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act” and “Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.)” in the name of the crime in the trial; (c) “Article 3(1), Articles 2(1)1 and 6 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; (d) Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act; and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act in the applicable provisions of Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act are “Articles 283(1) of the Criminal Act”; and (d) of the facts charged, the Defendant tried to change the title of paragraph (2) of the same Article into “special intimidation” from “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.)” to the victim’s 20 meters away from the victim’s book (hereinafter referred to the victim’s 61.

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below was modified, and this is a concurrent crime relationship between the remaining criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below and Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's defectiveness or mental disability still exists.