A. Even though the Defendant committed the instant crime under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the acute and destructive symptoms accompanied by dynamic and destructive symptoms after the outbreak of livering, the lower court did not recognize mental and physical disorder even though the Defendant committed the instant crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (16 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant was diagnosed with cerebral typhism (hereinafter referred to as "salphism"), around March 191 after 191 after her head was in military service, and the defendant was under medical treatment by taking her spherical symptoms from around that time to that time, but he/she is recognized as having given a relatively concrete statement about his/her method of crime at an investigative agency (it seems that the defendant did not appear to have made a statement as leading by the investigative agency, and that he/she has made a statement in a relatively concrete way in the current situation). Even according to the medical thesis submitted by the defendant, it is not general that the defendant was placed in a dynamic and destructive mental disorder state accompanied by her dynamic and destructive symptoms after her spheric formation, and there is no reason to view that the defendant had the ability to carry the body of the defendant with his/her mental disorder before and after the crime of this case, or that the defendant did not change his/her ability to engage in the crime of this case.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant recognized both the instant crime and was sentenced to a fine twice.