The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the ex officio determination (1) there is a statement that the defendant’s mental state is not a normal condition in the investigation records, and if there is a fact that the defendant’s statement in the investigation agency is difficult to be a normal state, it is doubtful that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime. Therefore, the court below should have clarified whether the defendant was

(See Supreme Court Decision 89Do583 delivered on September 26, 1989, etc.). (2) In accordance with the evidence records submitted by the prosecutor to the court below, the defendant made a statement that he had mental disorders at the time when he is examined by the police (Evidence No. 6), and the police officer who made an investigation may sufficiently determine that the defendant's mental condition is not normal (Evidence No. 5, No. 58). The fact that he reported the investigation (Evidence No. 5, No. 5, No. 8), and the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Dong-gu Dong also sent a reply to the fact-finding inquiry as follows: "The defendant was a intellectual handicapped person with intellectual disability of Grade 3 registered as a intellectual disability of January 18, 2006."

③ Even based on the statement of the victim of the instant case, there was no relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant prior to the commission of the crime, and there was no snicking and snicking the Defendant after the crime.

(3) If there are similar circumstances, the Defendant can be deemed to have committed a crime of injury in a state of mental disorder and drinking, due to intellectual disability and drinking.

Nevertheless, the court below, without identifying whether or not the defendant has mental or physical disorder, concluded the trial and sentenced the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer from this point.

B. We examine the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal and the sentencing of the court below.

It is relatively insignificant that the victim's wife is relatively minor, and the defendant continues to receive mental disorders treatment.