The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The information on the accused shall be disclosed for a period of five years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the Defendant case) The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order is requested (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).

A) At the time of the instant crime, the instant crime was in a state of mental or physical disability due to alcohol dependence, etc. (2) The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing decision (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendant is seeking to reverse the lower judgment and dismiss the request for an attachment order, while he/she again refrains from committing a crime.

Even if it is impossible to escape from an attachment order itself, it shall seek adjustment of the hours of prohibition of outing for livelihood.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the Defendant’s case states that the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s claim of mental disability was duly adopted and examined, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, i.e., (i) the Defendant’s mental sentiment was conducted in the lower court; (ii) the emotional distress of the Defendant was conducted at the lower court; (iii) the level of social adaptation was possible at the level of the boundary line; (iv) the level of daily life is not diagnosis due to any intellectual disability; and (v) the overall reality judgment ability is not impeded; and (iv) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime due to alcohol dependence; (v) the Defendant is presumed to have temporarily deteriorated impulse ability after alcohol intake; but (v) the Defendant’s criminal responsibility ability of the Defendant at the time of the instant crime was sound (58-60 pages of the trial record); and (v) the Defendant stated at the police that “I were married, and the mind was physically disabled,” and that the Defendant did not depend on the Defendant’s intent at the time of the instant crime.