The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of the instant crime, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was physically and mentally weak due to alcohol addiction at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which rejected the defendant's mental and physical disorder is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of ex officio judgment.

A. The Defendant’s previous conviction, which is the ground for aggravated repeated crimes, does not constitute criminal facts, but merely merely constitute sentencing grounds, and even if the indictment does not include any provision that applies to the aggravation of repeated crimes, the court may ex officio punish the Defendant as a repeated crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3194, Jul. 27, 2006; 2015Do6147, Jul. 9, 2015). (b) According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor on April 3, 2013 from the Suwon Branch Support, which was executed on September 30, 2013, and each of the instant crimes committed during the period from July 20 to May 23, 2016.

According to the above facts, since each of the crimes of this case was committed within three years after the execution of imprisonment was completed, it constitutes a repeated crime. Accordingly, the judgment below which did not add aggravated punishment to repeated crimes under Article 35 of the Criminal Act erred by misapprehending the legal principles on repeated crimes under Article 35 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment below cannot be maintained.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In determining the existence and degree of mental disorder under Article 10 of the Criminal Act, the court may independently determine the existence and degree of the mental disorder by taking into account the following factors: (a) the records, such as the background, means, and actions before and after the commission of the crime; and (b) the documents and the defendant’s legal attitude