The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months and a fine not exceeding 200,000 won.

The defendant above.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the public prosecution as to the violation of traffic law due to the destruction of goods by occupational negligence, and convicted each of the remaining facts charged. Since only the Defendant appealed against the guilty portion among the lower judgment, the part of dismissing the public prosecution for which the Defendant and the Prosecutor did not appeal was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes in the state of mental disorder by taking a stroke, a stroke, which is a method leading to the physical disorder, the lower court did not recognize it. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the mental disorder or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of probation, observation of protection, 80 hours community service, and 40 hours of compliance driving) is too unreasonable.

3. According to the records of the instant case’s assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant is deemed to have been in the state of taking the stroke, a stroke, a stroke, at the time of each of the instant crimes. However, in light of the content of each of the instant crimes, in particular, the Defendant stated that the police officer asked about his/her personal information immediately after the instant crime, he/she had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical disability cannot be justified.

4. The judgment of the court below, which was based on the initial indictment due to the changes in the indictment made in the trial room, was no longer maintained prior to the judgment as to the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing ex officio.

5. Conclusion.