180 days of detention prior to the judgment in an appellate trial shall be included in imprisonment with prison labor of the court of first instance.

The defendant's appeal that the defendant and the defendant under the influence of alcohol (as indicated below) were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case and that the court below's rejection of such assertion was erroneous in the facts about mental disorder and that the defendant did not enter the female house for the purpose of larceny, and the court below's first ground for appeal that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case was under the influence of alcohol, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. The court below's first ground for appeal that the defendant's punishment for attempted larceny was under the influence of the defendant's defense counsel. In full view of the evidence of the first instance court's decision maintained by the court below,

However, according to the records of this case, the court below submitted a written application, etc. to the effect that the family of the defendant has a mental disorder since the defendant's family has a mental disorder in the first instance trial process or the trial process of the court below. (No. 18,57,69 of the court below records) The court below asked questions of the presiding judge and asked the defendant about his way, and the defendant does not know his way, and the defendant does not know that he did not have any money, but did not have any money, and the court below stated that he did not memory his behavior at the time of the case. Accordingly, it can be known that the court below made a mental disorder and mental disorder at the time of the case. Thus, although the court below did not clearly state the decision, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment as to the grounds for reduction or exemption of punishment in violation of Article 323 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the court below's appeal No. 2 pointing this out is without merit.

However, according to the records of this case and the evidence investigated by the court of first instance and the court below, it is recognized that it is sufficient to judge the members, so it is decided directly by Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. The gist of the first ground for appeal by a defense counsel is that the first instance court found the defendant guilty by violating the rules of evidence even though the defendant did not have committed the crime in this case. The first ground for appeal by the defendant is that the court of first instance erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The first ground for appeal by the defendant is that the defendant, even though he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, was punished only by the first instance court without examining this point. The first instance court's judgment is that the defendant committed unlawful acts that affect the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts about mental disorder, and the second ground for appeal by the defendant and the defense counsel is that the second ground for appeal by each of the two grounds for appeal by the defendant and the defense counsel is unreasonable because the punishment of the

In full review of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of the defendant as alleged in the first instance court, and otherwise there is no illegality such as the argument on appeal in the process of fact-finding, and according to the records, although the defendant was drunk at the time of the crime, he did not appear to have been under the influence of mental and physical disorder up to the degree of mental disorder or mental disability. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss the appeal of the above mental and physical disorder. Meanwhile, although the defendant was under the influence of the second instance court and was under the mental and physical condition at the time of the crime, even according to the result of appraisal conducted by the second instance court, the defendant was under the influence of judgment and impulse control, and it seems that the defendant was under the influence of mental and physical disability or the degree of mental disability. Therefore, the above assertion is groundless.

Furthermore, considering the various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing investigated by the first instance court, the first instance court's sentence is inappropriate and it seems too heavy. In this case where it is acknowledged that the defendant satisfies the requirements for protective custody under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act, the fact that protective custody disposition is harsh does not constitute the grounds for appeal. Therefore, the above argument is groundless.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. In accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 180 days of detention days prior to the judgment of the court of appeal shall be included in the imprisonment of the court of first instance after the appeal is filed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)