The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness due to the outbreak of symptoms between a wound and a wound, who was under the influence of alcohol.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor are examined ex officio prior to the judgment.

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment with prison labor on August 2, 2002 for murder in the Changwon District Court Seoyang Branch Branch on July 13, 2012, and the execution of the sentence was completed on July 13, 2012, and the crime of murder in this case was committed within three years thereafter. The crime of murder in this case and the attempted crime of murder in this case constitute a "specific violent crime" under Article 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes.

Therefore, the lower court determined the punishment by applying Article 35 of the Criminal Act, even though only Article 35 of the Criminal Act provides for the aggravated application of repeated crimes to the indictment, and even though Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Cggravated Crimes should be aggravated for the attempted murder of this case, the lower court determined the punishment by applying only Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

This constitutes a ground for reversal that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistakenly calculating the applicable sentence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1556, May 14, 2004). Meanwhile, since the crime of attempted murder of this case and the crime of damaging the remainder of public goods in the judgment of the court below, one of the former concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act was sentenced, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in its entirety.

However, the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court even though there is such reason for reversal of authority.

B. The court below is legitimate in regard to the assertion of mental disorder.