The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is a provision on the punishment of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, has been decided by the Constitutional Court.

The judgment of the court below that did not recognize the mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the special robbery in this case is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

The sentence of imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes to the contents of "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" among the names of the crimes against the defendant in the trial of the court, and "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act" among the applicable provisions of the Act, "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act". Since the subject of the judgment is changed by this court's permission, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

In full view of the following circumstances, namely, the specific method and content of the crime of special robbery, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, etc., which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is not determined that the Defendant was in the state of having the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime of special robbery.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is examined above.