The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (mental disorder and sentencing disorder) was in a state of mental or physical loss, where the Defendant had no ability to discern things or make decisions due to illness at the time of committing the instant crime.

The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment of ex officio.

The lower court determined the Defendant by applying Article 262, 261, 260(1), and 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to the crime of causing special assault and injury.

However, in light of the legal principles as to the interpretation of penal provisions, the progress of the amendment of the Punishment Act on Violences, etc., the newly established process and contents, purpose thereof, the history and structure of Article 262 of the Criminal Act, and the text and structure of Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable to interpret that a person injured by a special assault is subject to punishment pursuant to Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, as in the previous case, notwithstanding the newly established provision of Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do3443, Jul. 24, 2018). The judgment of the court below erred in the application of statutes, and each crime of the court below, including this part, should be sentenced to a single sentence as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below becomes

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the argument about the defendant's mental and physical disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will examine below.

B. According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the defendant suffers from Compilational illness for a long time.

However, in light of the background of the instant crime, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, such as the fact that the Defendant was faced with the victim’s restraint from the victims, and that the Defendant was accurately hacking and knife the victims.