All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A mentally ill-minded person (the second instance judgment) was in a state of mental disorder due to mental illness, such as depression, summons, and crypology, etc., at the time of committing each crime in the case of 2016 high group 233 and 2016 high group 2562 of the judgment of the second instance.

The sentence of unfair sentencing imposed on the accused by the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

Before determining the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, this Court held ex officio the case of appeal against the judgment of the court below by combining each appeal against the judgment of the court below. Each of the crimes in the case of consolidation is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment, pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this point.

In addition, the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to have been in a state of mental disorder, and thus, the defendant has been given a reduction due to mental disorder, according to the records and records ex officio, since it is deemed that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder, and thus, the defendant was treated as a stimulative disorder. However, in light of the following facts: the defendant's speech and behavior after the crime was committed by the investigative agency, and accurately stated the size of concrete used for the crime; the defendant's speech and behavior after the crime was committed; the circumstances leading to the crime; the means and method of the crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder at the time of the

Therefore, even though it is difficult to see that the defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the crime, the court of first instance recognized that the defendant committed each crime of 2016 high-ranking 575 in a state of mental disability.