The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant with mental disorder committed the instant crime due to serious shock disorder by the Egyptive Team. As such, at the time of the instant crime, at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phenomenon where a person commits a crime due to his/her failure to suppress his/her impulse to judge his/her mental disorder is found even to be the normal person. Barring any special circumstance, it cannot be said that a person who has such 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 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, in principle.

However, if a mental disorder within the original meaning, which causes disorder to the ability to discern things more than that, is a cause of a wall, or even if the cause of a wall is the same as that of a shock disorder, if the degree is very serious and it can be evaluated that the cause of the wall is equal to that of the person with the original meaning, the thief crime should be deemed to be a crime caused by a mental disorder.

In light of various circumstances such as health stand, the background, means and methods of the theft crime of this case, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, it is difficult to recognize that the shock disorder caused by the physiological disorder of the defendant by the climatic army is equivalent to the person with the original meaning of mental disorder, which impedes the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted.

B. The defendant's decision on the argument of unfair sentencing is suspended.