The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime of mental disorder, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.

According to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, in a case where a person who committed an offense without a complaint voluntarily surrenders himself/herself before a judgment or disciplinary action on a case on which a false fact was reported becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted. Article 153 of the Criminal Act includes cases where, as a result of the investigation of the case in which the accused accused accused, a prosecution against the accused is revealed due to the accusation of the accused and the prosecution against the accused is instituted, and a decision not to prosecute the accused is made and the trial procedure has not been initiated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7293, Aug. 1, 2018). While the lower court denied the instant facts charged, the accused led to the confession of the instant facts charged, and the accused’s in a case where the accused raised a complaint against the suspicion of rape with the intent to escape from an investigative agency, and accordingly, the prosecution against the accused’s non-guilty

Therefore, the judgment of the court below was unable to maintain as it is, since the grounds for the necessary reduction and exemption of the punishment against the defendant have occurred in the trial.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of defectiveness is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. In light of the background, means, and methods of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, etc. acknowledged by the record as to the assertion of defectiveness, it does not seem that the Defendant had a state of loss of ability to discern things and make decisions. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of defectiveness is rejected.

4...