The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes Nos. 1 and 2 of the decision of the court below, and No. 3. of the decision of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the first crime (special robbery) of each of the crimes in this case of mistake of facts, the Defendant and the candidate for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not know that the Defendant, the accomplice for the assault, took possession of a camera owned by the victim after assaulting the victim. Since it cannot be said that the Defendant had an intention to obtain illegal use of a camera, the Defendant did not constitute a special robbery.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two and half years of imprisonment with prison labor for crimes Nos. 1 and 2 as indicated in the original judgment, and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for crimes Nos. 3 through 5 as indicated in the lower judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, according to the written mental appraisal of the Defendant at the Medical Treatment and Custody Director’s request for mental appraisal of the party, the Defendant is diagnosed as having mixed, uneasiness, depression, and mental retardation, etc., and it can be recognized that the Defendant had such mental condition at the time of each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below.

In addition to various circumstances, such as the background, means, and attitudes of each of the above crimes indicated in the record, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder, in which the ability to discern things or make a decision was deteriorated due to the mixed apprehension, depression, and mental retardation at the time of each crime in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant committed each crime in a normal mental state shall not be reversed because the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on mental and physical disability.

I would like to say.

On the other hand, the court below's decision on the ground of ex officio reversal is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. Determination of mistake of facts