The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant was in the state of mental disorder at the time of the instant case, by making a phone call to Defendant A while in the process of influence with the mental disorder, while taking a handphone back, and the Defendant was in the state of mental disorder.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant had the record of having been sentenced to imprisonment and a fine due to the violation of the Narcotics Control Act (mariju). However, the Defendant made a confession and reflect on the instant crime. Meanwhile, the instant case is the first and the instant case is deemed not to be re-guilty; the Defendant is in the position to support two children under the age of 14 and 11; taking full account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and method of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, the motive, method and method of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is somewhat unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is reasonable.

B. According to the records on the Defendant B’s assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant may be found to have been given a prescription of exemption from water from November 9, 2009 due to the commencement and maintenance of the water surface, but the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was in a state of taking exemption from water at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. The background and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after committing the instant crime.