The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was treated with unfair treatment from the victim from the time when he was frightened, and when he heard ir difficult verbal abuse immediately before the instant crime, Defendant 1 committed the instant crime under the condition that he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions in a timely manner by explosioning with labor he was committed in the same time. (2) The lower court’s punishment of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment with labor, five years of short term and four years of short term) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor on the discretionary judgment, the defendant was examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, and it is apparent that the defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the judgment of the court below, but it has reached the age of majority in the trial. Thus, the judgment of the court below which sentenced the defendant to an irregular

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to a trial at the court, and this will be examined below.

B. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly examined as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant was suffering from mental symptoms such as unstable appraisal at the time of committing the crime in this case, red and psychological conflicts against his family members, apprehension of the future, etc., but it is difficult to view that the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime in this case, taking into account the circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background, method, and method of the crime (the notice of the result of mental appraisal by the director of the medical treatment and custody office), and other circumstances, etc., such as the process, method and method of the crime in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal.