The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to depression, mental retardation, etc.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In this case, the ex officio judgment prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which added the facts charged as stated in the following facts, and since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's mental and physical disability is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined.

The defendant's intellectual level of judgment on the assertion of mental disorder is low, and the fact that he was judged at physical Grade V due to boundary intelligence and mental retardation in the military physical examination conducted around 2007 is recognized.

However, the Defendant, at an investigative agency, has been hospitalized in another hospital and has stolen another person’s cash. When hospitalized in a hospital due to P’s personal information, the Defendant was hospitalized in the hospital with the name of P by reducing hospital expenses as a basic livelihood guardian. When the patient was hospitalized in the hospital, the patient committed a crime by leaving the hospital easy to commit the crime by cutting away money and goods. The patient clearly stated the situation and motive before and after the thief crime, stating that the victim was punished by larceny, and accurately understood that the thief was punished by larceny. In addition, in light of the circumstances and methods of each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant, the details of the crime, the act committed by the Defendant before and after the crime, and the content and attitude of the statement in the court, etc., it is difficult to view that there was a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions as a reason for mitigation of punishment, the above argument by the Defendant is reasonable.