폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
The defendant shall have a knife of seized knife.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, at the time of each of the instant crimes, was drunk and was in a state of mental disability.
B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the records of this case as to the claim of mental retardation, in light of various circumstances, such as the occurrence of each of the crimes of this case, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes of this case, and the circumstance, means, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, and the date and process of each of the crimes of this case, and the defendant stated in an investigative agency.
Since it seems that it does not seem that it has reached a state or weak, the defendant's assertion of mental disability shall not be accepted.
B. B. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing by authority, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to one year and six months of imprisonment. However, since the statutory punishment for the crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act) should have been sentenced to imprisonment for not less than three years, the lower court should have sentenced to discretionary mitigation in order to sentence the Defendant who did not have any legal grounds for mitigation. However, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a sentence that deviates from the applicable sentencing scope without omitting it, and in this regard, the lower court
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio under Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal.