The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the mental symptoms of a stimulative and emotional disorder.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. In the judgment of ex officio, the prosecutor filed an application for permission to amend the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to change the name of the crime of this case from "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to "Habitual Larceny", and Article 5-4 (1) and Article 329 of the Criminal Act from among applicable provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to "Article 332 and Article 329 of the Criminal Act". Since the same is changed by the court

However, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and it will be examined below.

B. Around June 2003, the Defendant was diagnosed as having been in need of medical treatment due to the symptoms of stimulative disorder, and at present, the Defendant wishes to provide medical treatment in a medical treatment and custody center by taking the mental and pharmaceutical medicine in the prison.

In light of the circumstances indicated in the instant argument and the record, it does not seem that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime, in full view of the developments leading up to the instant crime, the attitude of the Defendant, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime.

The lower court’s measure that did not recognize mental and physical disability as to the instant crime is justifiable, and it does not seem to have any error as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for reversal, and thus, unfair sentencing.