The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant of mistake of facts only made one time the threshold of the victim, and did not inflict an injury as stated in the facts charged of this case.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability with mental disorder.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court fully recognizes the fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, took the victim’s face once more than three weeks of treatment, etc., and took about about three weeks of treatment.

The court below is just in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts.

B. According to the records of this case’s determination on the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant was suffering from a dead mental disorder prior to the crime of this case, and the Defendant committed a crime in the course of returning to society and having a counseling room with the victim in order to receive mental treatment at the time of this case without any special reason. The investigation by the investigative agency was conducted, and “I would not receive a mental and medical treatment because I would feel the same sense that I would be able to receive mental treatment,” and the victim stated that “I would have continued to undergo a mental and medical treatment.”

In full view of the above circumstances, since it is recognized that the defendant at the time of the crime in this case was in a state where the ability to discern things or make decisions was weak due to the de facto divided disease, the court below erred by failing to reduce the level of mental disorder.

3. If so, the defendant's argument of mental disability is reasonable, and thus, the decision on the argument of unfair sentencing is omitted.