A. The Defendant did not associate with the police station at the time of the instant case. However, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the state of mental and physical disability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment and fine of 600,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the claim of mental retardation, the Defendant is found to have taken a bath while receiving treatment at a hospital twice a month from May 30, 2017 due to shock disorder, and the fact that the Defendant, from around May 30, 2017, performed considerable quantity of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime and was unable to memory part of the situation at the time of the instant crime.

However, the failure of the defendant to partially memory the situation at the time of the instant case refers to a phenomenon in which the input and interpretation of the information are adversely affected by lowering the activities of a temporary memory witness, blacout, alcohol of a temporary memory cell.

In principle, a defect of character, such as shock disorder, does not constitute a mental disorder, which is the reason for the reduction or exemption of punishment, unless it is so serious that it can be evaluated as equal to the original mental illness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009). In the investigation before the judgment, opinions were presented that there is no known problem on the defendant. In full view of the details and contents of the crime in this case, methods of the crime, the behavior and conduct of the defendant committed, and the circumstances before and after the crime in this case, it does not seem that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime in this case.

Even if it is not so, the defendant depends on the influence of alcohol because it is not every day that he failed in the business around 2008.