The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the status of mental and physical disorder or mental disability, even though the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime of destroying and damaging the property, was in a state of medication of merpta (hereinafter “copon”).

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though the Defendant was deemed to have administered a phiphone at the time of committing the instant crime of destruction of property, in light of all the circumstances such as the background of the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime of destruction of property, it is not deemed that the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the administration of phiphones at the time

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder cannot be accepted.

B. On December 28, 2010, the Defendant, at the Busan District Court, sentenced one year and two months to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and completed the execution of the sentence on January 18, 2012. On April 25, 2014, the same court was sentenced to eight months for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence on October 14, 2014, and again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime even after the execution of the sentence was completed, and the Defendant was not limited to the administration of phiphonephones, but also to the crime of destroying and damaging property. In light of the above, the Defendant need to have a strict liability corresponding thereto.

However, the Defendant led to the entire confession of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and the crime of this case was administered once by the Defendant, and the degree of damage caused by the crime of causing property damage is relatively significant, and the Defendant committed the crime of causing property damage in the course of the trial.