The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although there was no fact that there was a crime listed in Paragraph (3) of the Crime List among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the lower court convicted this part, which was unlawful.

A mentally ill-minded defendant was a third degree of mental retardation disability at the time of the crime in this case.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant in the judgment of the court below also argued that he is identical to this part of the assertion of mistake, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion with detailed reasons.

(3) If the judgment of the court below is closely compared with the records, the judgment is justified and it is not erroneous in the misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant.

According to the evidence of the determination as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment by larceny, etc. in the Suwon District Court of Korea on November 28, 2012, the fact that the defendant was legally mitigated (134 pages of the evidence record), the sentencing investigation document submitted by the prosecutor also recognized that the defendant has the elements of mitigation of mental disorder (179 pages of the evidence record), and considering the following factors: (a) the defendant is deemed to drink alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case; (b) the defendant was found to have no ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime of this case; and (c) the defendant was sentenced to the punishment investigation document submitted by the prosecutor on the ground that the defendant is a mental disorder (134 pages of the evidence record); and (d) the circumstance and manner leading up to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime of this case, and the defendant's act before and after the crime of this case.

It is reasonable to view that a state was either or weak.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is justified.

In conclusion, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, but it is reasonable to judge the argument of unfair sentencing.