The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that this judgment.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request with respect to the case of the attachment order claim while rendering a judgment of conviction against the defendant, and the defendant appealed only against this, and thus, there is no benefit of appeal with respect to the case of the attachment order claim.

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. for Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the part of the defendant's case constitutes the scope

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state where the ability to discern things was significantly lacking due to inter-sex divorce.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the assertion of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment regarding the assertion of mental disorder. As to this, the lower court determined the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion in the lower judgment as stated in Article 2-

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant was hospitalized with a disease, such as “malutism (a disease that shows symptoms, such as disorder of her male force, disorder of behavior, and scarcity, etc.)” from September 28, 201 to October 4, 2011, including “the case where the Defendant was in a congested state due to a liver infection, which is accompanied by a liver disease.” However, in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the liver divorce at the time of committing the instant crime.

It was determined that it was difficult to view that there was a weak or weak state.

A thorough examination is conducted by comparing the above judgment of the court below with the records.