The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental fissionation at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower court neglected this. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts concerning the Defendant’s mental and physical state or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of mental disorder stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act is a biological factor and requires that mental disorder, such as mental disorder, such as mental disorder, mental disorder or abnormal mental condition, is lacking or reduced in the ability to distinguish things due to such mental disorder, and accordingly, the mental disorder cannot be viewed as a mental disorder, if a person with mental disorder is a person with a normal mental disorder or the ability to control actions accordingly, at the time of committing the crime. However, in the case of a fixed mental disorder such as mental disorder, even if the mental disorder appears to be identical to the normal ability to distinguish things from others at the time of committing the crime, it is common that the mental disorder does not suppress the impulse of the crime in the process of causing the crime. In such a case, the mental disorder affected the ability to control the behavior due to the mental disorder and thus can be regarded as a mental disorder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do1425 delivered on August 18, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7342 delivered on December 9, 2005, etc.). Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances are acknowledged based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Health Team, the original court and the party. In other words, the Defendant was hospitalized in a month after being under brain operation after being into a middle school, and the Defendant was aware of the non-person during the period thereafter, and was divided into expressions without any overlap.