The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant had a mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

The sentencing of the lower court on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

On September 7, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and on July 20, 201, for violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) in the branch court of Suwon District Court on September 7, 2007, and completed medical treatment and custody on July 20, 201, and committed each of the crimes of this case during the probation period, and thus, each of the crimes of this case constitutes a repeated offense. Therefore, the lower court erred by omitting aggravation of repeated offense, and thus, the lower court should reverse the judgment.

However, the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

Article 10 of the Criminal Act on the argument of mental disorder is a biological element and requires that mental disorder, such as mental disorder, mental disorder, or abnormal mental condition, has been lacking or reduced in the ability to distinguish things due to such mental disorder, and accordingly, the mental disorder cannot be deemed a mental disorder if a person with mental disorder has normal ability to distinguish things or control action at the time of committing the crime. However, in the case of a fixed mental disorder such as mental division, even if the mental disorder seems to be the same as the normal person in the process of committing the crime, it is often related to the mental disorder, and it is often related to the shock of the crime. In such a case, there is room to deem that it is a mental disorder since the ability to control action has deteriorated due to mental disorder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do1425 delivered on August 18, 1992, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was on September 7, 2007.