The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental retardation disorder.

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

2. Determination as to the claim of mental disability

A. The court below stated that the defendant's mental retardation disability grade 1, and the victim stated that "the defendant was suffering from bodily disability in the market with employees and her own bodily injury" (refer to the 9th page of the investigation record), and that "the defendant stated that "the victim was injured by the victim's bodily injury at the wind playing "the victim's drinking house with drinking alcohol" in 2008 (refer to the 17th page of the investigation record)," and that "the defendant committed a crime under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions with mental retardation at the time when he was indicted for fraud (refer to the 17th page of the investigation record), and that the defendant committed a crime under the lack of mental retardation ability at the time when he was indicted for fraud in 208 (refer to the 17th page of the investigation record), and that he committed a crime under the lack of mental retardation or ability to make decisions with mental retardation at the time of larceny in the year 2011 (refer to the 14th judgment below's mental retardation or ability to make decisions with mental retardation disorder (refer to the 14).

B. Therefore, the defendant's above argument of mental disability is justified.

3. If so, the appeal claiming mental and physical disability of the defendant is reasonable. Thus, Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not required.