The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Despite the fact that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability or mental disability due to symptoms of alcohol dependence at the time of the instant crime, etc., the lower court erred by exceeding this and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. We examine the Defendant’s mental and physical argument.

According to the records, the following circumstances are recognized:

① The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes while under the influence of alcohol.

② According to the result of the Defendant’s mental assessment, the Defendant had a major eulic disorder with alcohol dependence. At the time of each of the instant crimes, it is presumed that the Defendant, even though she committed each of the instant crimes, had shown a high fluorial disorder caused by alcohol consumption and alcohol consumption, and that he/she had shown a fall in the ability to control shock, a fall in the impulse capacity, and a fall in memory.

③ Even in Seoul Southern District Court 2010Ma1733, 2786 (Joint), 2965 (Consolidated), and 3363 (Consolidated), the Defendant’s crime similar to the instant crime was found to have been committed in a state of mental and physical disability due to alcohol dependence, other damp and shock disorder.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the defendant was found to have committed the crime under the state that he lacks the ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to alcohol dependence, major depression disorder, and shock disorder at the time of each of the crimes in this case (However, it seems that the state of mental disorder does not reach the state of mental disorder). The court below erred by failing to consider the state of mental disorder of the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant's argument about mental disorder is justified within the above scope of recognition.

3. The defendant's appeal is with merit. Thus, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, it is in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.