A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

A. The Defendant had no intention to commit a theft at the time of intrusion into the victim’s residence.

B. The Defendant had a mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as in the trial, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charges by recognizing the Defendant’s criminal intent of theft, taking into account the circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the defendant cannot deny the defendant's criminal intent of theft, regardless of the fact that the defendant seems to have committed an intentional crime under the mental and physical weakness at that time. Thus, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. According to the lower court’s mental appraisal and judgment (Evidence No. 13) against the Defendant regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was subject to reduction of mental and physical weakness because he was found to have a dynamic restraint disorder due to imprisonment of 2 months with prison labor for larceny at the Seoul East District Court on March 22, 2017, and fluoral disorder and alcohol dependence at the time of being sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was presumed to have temporarily shown severe mental symptoms, such as the depending influence and alcohol consumption, temporary exchange, emotional instability, paralysis, paralysis, and alcohol influence disorder, etc. At the time of the instant crime. As such, the Defendant was found to have committed the instant crime in a state where he lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions with weak ability to discern things due to the influence force and alcohol force. As such, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act is recognized.