The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Seized evidence No. 1 (L.).

A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in the state of having no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions by means of mixm or drinking, which is the mentally and physically handicapped person and weak person, and thus, the lower court did not recognize it, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the defectiveness or the fact of mental disorder.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as well as the written mental appraisal of the Defendant in the preparation of the Medical Treatment and Custody Center at the trial room, the Defendant may recognize the fact that there was an aggressive behavior, emotional instability, disorder of memory, or disorder of judgment, etc. temporarily inappropriate in the state of drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the Defendant is deemed to have committed each of the above crimes under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol addiction at the time of each of the above crimes. However, considering the following circumstances, the Defendant was found to have not had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, etc. at the time of each of the above crimes, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the background leading up to each of the above crimes; (b) the means and methods of the crime; (c) the Defendant’s criminal conduct before and after the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime committed.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is reasonable, but the defendant's argument of mental disorder is not reasonable.

B. As above, as long as the argument of unfair sentencing is well-grounded, a new punishment should be imposed on the defendant within the applicable sentencing range subject to statutory mitigation, as long as the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is well-grounded. Therefore, the decision on the defendant

3...