1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for seven years;

3.A knife, knife, knife (No. 1).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and Appellant for Medical Treatment and Custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) 1 were in the state of mental disability due to mental illness at the time of the instant crime. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (nine years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. First of all, we examine the defendant's mental disability claim.

AA and AB diagnosed the Defendant’s mental disorder as a network disorder. At the time of committing the instant crime, they presented the opinion that the Defendant was presumed to have shown the husband’s wrongful, emotional instability, humiliation, humiliation and insult, aggressive and temporary improper aggressive conduct, etc., and that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder whose capacity to distinguish things and make decisions was deteriorated. In full view of the Defendant’s motive and background leading up to the instant crime that can be recognized based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and the Defendant’s act, etc. at the time of committing the instant crime, it is deemed that the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, such as network disorder, etc.

Therefore, even though the punishment of the defendant should be mitigated pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act for the crime of this case, the court below did not take measures for mitigation of punishment due to mental or physical disorder. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's mental or physical disorder and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this part is justified.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable. Thus, Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable without examining the defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing.