A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a pharmacologic treatment due to her duress, and accordingly, was in a state of drinking, despite having dysnating alcohol at the time, and was in a state of falling short of the ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The eight-month imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio. According to the records of this case, the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny in this court on March 8, 2013, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the 16th of the same month. As such, the crime of larceny for which judgment became final and conclusive and each of the bodily injury in the judgment of the court below is in a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a punishment shall be determined after considering equity in the case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment. Thus, the judgment below which failed

However, despite the existence of the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it can be seen as above.

B. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, it is recognized that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes of this case, and suffered from a person suffering from a usual depression, but this does not seem to have reached the state where the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the crimes of this case was weak, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal.