The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant suffered from mental illness at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disability.

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

2. The phenomenon where a crime was committed due to his/her failure to suppress his/her impulse in determining the mental disorder is likely to be found even for the normal person. Barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a person with the above character defect requires an act that cannot be expected to restrain his/her impulse and to demand compliance with the law, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that, in principle, a defect of nature, such as shock disorder, does not constitute a mental disorder, which is the reason for the reduction or exemption of punishment.

However, even if a defect of the same nature as a shock disorder is seriously serious, if it can be assessed to be equal to a person who has a mental disorder within the original meaning, the crime caused by such defect shall be deemed to be a crime caused by mental disorder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1541 Decided May 24, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14512 Decided February 10, 201, etc.). According to the inquiry inquiry about BN Hospital of this court, the fact that the Defendant was hospitalized or treated for outpatients due to symptoms, such as emotional instability, accident disorder, and shock disorder, etc. from June 2018 to October 201 can be recognized. However, in light of the background, means and methods of the instant crime, conduct shown before and after the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant at the time of the crime did not seem to have reached a state where the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. The Defendant has a record of having been punished several times for the same kind of crime, and is still under the period of repeated crime.