A. Considering the fact that the motive or cause of the attempted murder of this case is so-called “influence crime” and there is no particular motive or cause for the commission of the crime, the Defendant prepared one-time form of the victim’s right clothes with left hand, the Defendant’s act before and after the commission of the crime, who committed the crime, and was arrested by the police, and led to the crime in a timely and orderly manner, and led to the Defendant’s accurate, consistent memory, and statement of the situation before and after the commission of the crime; the Defendant did not have any mental therapy before and after the instant case; even if the Defendant appeared to have been diagnosed at the medical treatment and custody center, this is presumed to have been detained for 2 months after the instant crime, and it is presumed that the young Defendant was seriously unstable due to the fear of the crime, reduction, or punishment, the lower court determined that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the instant crime by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental disorder at the time when the Defendant committed the crime of this case, as determined by the lower court.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, five years of probation, 80 hours of probation, 40 hours of probation, and 40 hours of imprisonment) is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the contents of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the written mental health care center (public health care center) acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was deemed to have lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime, and thus, a number of witnesses at the lower court that was conducted as a participatory trial.