The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

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

2. In light of the Defendant’s statement of his mental diagnosis (as of June 23, 2003) against the Defendant issued by K in the determination of the Defendant’s mental diagnosis, the background of the instant crime, theft objects, criminal record relation, and the Defendant’s state revealed in the oral proceedings, etc., the instant crime appears to have committed the instant crime in a state where the Defendant lacks the ability to make a decision due to a lack of mental personality disorder

As the Criminal Act was amended by Act No. 15982 on December 18, 2018, Article 10(2) was amended as a provision for the necessary mitigation for mentally-disabled persons under Article 10(2) was amended as a provision for discretionary mitigation, but it is reasonable to apply the provision for statutory mitigation to the defendant in light of the content of the mental appraisal statement submitted in the trial.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. As such, the defendant's argument of mental disability is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the argument of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

[Dao-written judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence added to the first head "where the defendant lacks the ability to make a decision due to any defect in personality, etc." and, except for addition to "Cho-man K's mental emotions" to the summary of evidence, it is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. The relevant Article of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the selection of punishment;