The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was not in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the robbery in this case by misapprehending the legal principles as to mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to mental illness

A. The lower court determined that at the time of the crime resulting from robbery of this case, the Defendant was at the time of committing the act of robbery of this case, which led to a serious psychological state and unstable psychological state due to the mother’s attempted suicide, the process of preparation for robbery, etc., and that, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. However, it is difficult to regard the Defendant’s economic situation or gathering situation as materials for determination of mental and physical disability because it leads to a crime of larceny, robbery, etc., or resulting in an unstable psychological state in the process of preparing the crime, without putting the impulse of the crime, by reason of such economic situation or gathering circumstances, etc.

Meanwhile, according to the records, even though the defendant was in a drunken state at the time of committing the robbery of this case, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the robbery of this case, in full view of all the circumstances such as the method by which the crime was committed by robbery of this case, the method by which the defendant was committed by robbery of this case, the behavior and circumstance of the defendant before and after the crime, and the statement of the defendant in the process of investigation, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the robbery of this case.

(c) therefore,.