(1) Thus, according to the principle of indivisible appeal, the part of acquittal on the part of the judgment of the court below as to the special injury in existence as well as the part of the judgment of the court below is remanded to the court for a trial. However, that part is already exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and is in fact separated from the object of attack and defense. As such, it cannot be determined as to that part, and this part is excluded from the scope of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004, etc.). (2) The part of the judgment of the court below as to the medical care and custody claim in the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court, notwithstanding Article 14

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unreasonable as the penalty (4 million won) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The Defendant committed the instant crime in a state that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to early illness; the victim’s injury result is relatively minor; the victim does not want to punish the Defendant; and as his father and father, does his best to prevent recidivism, such as continuous treatment of the Defendant; and the fact that the Defendant recognizes all of the crimes is favorable.

On the other hand, the Defendant committed the instant crime, even though he/she was under suspended execution on November 25, 2016, by having been sentenced to three years of suspended execution on November 17, 2016, due to a special assault to the same victim, the attempt to commit the instant crime against the present owner’s building, the attempt to prevent bodily harm, and the destruction of property.