The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Reviewing the determination of the assertion of mental disorder, the following circumstances are recognized according to the records.

In other words, the Defendant was under the influence of drinking alcohol while drinking alcohol frequently (in one week, drinking alcohol twice a week, drinking breably drinking once a week, drinking brealy drinking for 2 days) and drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. The Defendant stated that his behavior at the time of committing the instant crime is not accurately memory.

From January 24, 2013 to July 11, 2013, the Defendant was hospitalized in the closed-end disease ward with alcohol dependence, etc. and received medical treatment, and even thereafter, from around 2006, the Defendant had been repeatedly discharged from the hospital due to the same symptoms.

In addition, according to the method and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s investigative agency, and the court of the original instance and the court of the trial, and the degree of memory of the instant crime, it is recognized that the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol in the state of mental disorder, such as alcohol dependence, etc. at the time of the instant crime (However, it is not recognized that the Defendant, beyond the state of mental disorder at the time of the instant crime, has reached the state where it is unable to discern things or make decisions). This constitutes a requisite mitigation of punishment under Article 10(2) and (1)

This part of the defendant's argument is justified.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the allegation of unfair sentencing, and the following is again reversed through pleading.