In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

A. In light of the legal principles, the defendant and the person to whom an attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as "defendants") were drunk at the time of the crime of this case, so they were in a state of mental disability, and even according to the result of the commission of mental evaluation by the court of the original instance on January 28, 2013, the mental state at the time of each crime of this case is presumed to have been in a state of mental disability at the time of the crime of this case, but the court below neglected it. The judgment of the court below is erroneous

B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mental disorder, determination of the existence and degree of mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act is not necessarily a legal judgment, but a specialized appraiser’s opinion is not necessarily bound. In full view of various circumstances such as the type and degree of mental illness, motive and background of the crime, means and mode, Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, degree of reflectability, etc., the court may independently determine the assertion of mental disorder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do1194, Aug. 24, 199; 99Do3391, Jul. 12, 2007; 2007Do8333, 2007; 2007Do222, Nov. 29, 207; 2007; 10.