1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years;

3. One kitchen (No. 1) which has been seized, shall be a kitchen;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant and the person having the right to care and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness.

B. The punishment of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The appraiser F who appraised the Defendant’s mental disorder as to the claim of mental disorder presented his opinion that the Defendant’s mental disorder is “a mental disorder”, and that the Defendant appears to have had the mental disorder of the current colon, such as a syllogic accident, autism accident, a decline in the real ability verification, a decrease in the ability to conduct the verification of reality, and a decrease in the ability to control shock, etc. at the time of the crime of this case, and that at the time of the crime of this case, at the time of the crime of this case, the mental disorder as above, it is deemed that there was a mental disorder that affected the ability to discern things and make decisions.

In full view of the motive and background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act at the time of the instant crime, the attitude in this court, etc., which can be found based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, deemed that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to emotional illness at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the punishment should be mitigated pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act with respect to the Defendant’s instant crime.

However, the court below did not take such measures as mitigation of punishment. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts about the defendant's mental and physical condition or by misunderstanding the legal principles on mental and physical disorder, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendant's assertion

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and thus, the defendant's appeal is unfair in sentencing in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.