The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.

Seized evidence subparagraph 1 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, deadly weapon, etc.) was committed by the Defendant with the history of treating him as a mentally divided disease, etc., and the crime committed in a state where he/she was in a state where he/she had a sculphon administered a sculphphone and has been reconc

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the Defendant had the history of treating the Defendant due to mental division disease, etc., and the Defendant’s administration of phiphones prior to the day he commits each of the instant offenses in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.). However, in light of the background of the instant offenses, method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant did not appear to have been in the state of having lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime, and even

Even if the Defendant, on June 2012, prior to the occurrence of each of the instant crimes, was able to recognize the fact that he was subject to criminal punishment (one year of imprisonment) by administering a phiphone and destroying property, etc., which is a dangerous thing in the state of sculping, by administering a phiphone, etc., even though the Defendant predicted in advance the risk of causing damage to property, etc. that may occur during the course of administering a phiphone, thereby leaving the state of mental and physical disorder.

As such, the above act of the defendant constitutes a free act in the so-called cause under Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act, and thus, it cannot be reduced of mental or physical disability or mental disability.

As such, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Unreasonable sentencing.