A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the nature mental disorder and interview.

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

2. Comprehensively taking into account the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the details of the crime, the Defendant’s speech before and after the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the circumstances where the Defendant was treated with a qualitative disorder recognized by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, it can be recognized that at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the decline in the real ability to judge due to a chronic and qualitative mental disorder.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is justified.

(B) On March 3, 200, the defendant's argument of mental or physical disability is justified. Thus, without examining the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and this decision is again decided as follows.

[Discied Judgment] The criminal facts recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the entries of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Mitigation of mental illness and injury: Articles 10 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that aggravated concurrent crimes shows an attitude against the defendant, and it is advantageous to the agreement with the victim D.