1. The part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance concerning the defendant's case shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for life;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (the first instance judgment) are mentally ill-incompetents (the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”)

(2) Each of the lower judgment’s sentences (No. 1: imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months, and 2: imprisonment of 3 years and 3 years: life imprisonment of :) is too unreasonable, under the influence of liquor at the time of committing the crime of the first instance judgment.

B. Each prosecutor’s each sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, among the names of the crimes charged in the first instance trial, as "Habitual larceny", and Article 332 of the Criminal Act, "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" among the applicable provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and

In addition, the first and second judgment against the defendant was pronounced, and both the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against each of the above judgment. This court decided to hold concurrent hearings with each of the above appeal cases. The above judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence is imposed against the defendant pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the first and second judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mental disability against the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. The Defendant stated that the investigative agency did not drink at the time of the crime of injury by robbery in this case, and the victim D also stated that the Defendant did not smell to the Defendant (2014 high-priced 171 evidence records 27,105 pages), and the instant case.