The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

A person who applies for a medical care and custody shall be punished.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime with mental disorder, the Defendant was in a mental disorder.

B. The punishment of the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the ex officio decision-making records (the decision of the Busan District Court 2017 High Court 59 High Court 2017 High Court 2017 High Court 2017 High Court 2010, the results of the Conetnet search case), the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on May 10, 2017 to six months for special injury in Busan District Court west Branch Branch, and the decision became final and conclusive on the 18th of the same month.

Since the crime of death resulting in bodily injury in the existence of the judgment of the court below is in the relation of concurrent crimes between the crime of special bodily injury for which judgment has become final and conclusive and the crime of special bodily injury after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity with the case where the above special bodily injury is adjudicated simultaneously with the above special bodily injury

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

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

B. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder. In other words, the defendant repeated the entry into and discharge from a mental hospital from the mental hospital for about 15 years prior to the examination (the protocol of interrogation of the defendant). After that, the defendant was diagnosed by U.S. hospital around July 31, 2015, and was provided with outpatient medical treatment, and the defendant was conducted at the hospital from August 4, 2016 to August 31, 201 of the same month with the symptoms such as the damage net, exchange, aggressive words, and aggressive speech and behavior before the crime of this case, even after receiving the above diagnosis and treatment, the defendant was under the condition that continuous treatment and observation of progress were required due to the lack of the defense of symptoms (see, e.g., evidence records No. 98, No. 111, opinion of opinion, opinion of opinion, etc.).