In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.

The Defendant of mental disorder was in the state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime due to a mental fission, etc., but the lower court neglected this.

The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In full view of the motive of the Defendant’s crime, the victim’s statement, the prepared tool and frequency of the attack, the course of movement, and the method and frequency of the destruction, etc., acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the intent to commit murder and damage to property at the time of the instant crime. This does not change to the fact that the Defendant had a state of mental disability at the time of the instant crime.

According to the records on the assertion of mental disorder, even though the defendant was found to have weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the unsified mental fission at the time of the crime in this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had reached a state where he lost such capacity at the time of the crime in this case in light of the motive and circumstances of the crime in this case, the means and methods of the crime in this case,

There are circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances, such as: (a) the Defendant reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder caused by mental division with a contingency; (c) the victims do not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (d) the Defendant did not have any criminal record other than a single fine.

However, on the other hand, this case.