The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

A. On April 1, 2003, the lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance through the instant judgment subject to a retrial, and sentenced two years to imprisonment, and finally became final and conclusive as is, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

B. The Defendant filed a petition for a new trial with this Court No. 2016No. 24, and this Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on June 21, 2016, and thereafter, the decision to commence the new trial became final and conclusive as is, on the grounds that no legitimate appeal has been filed within the period of appeal.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol, but the judgment of the first instance court was erroneous.

(b) The punishment of unfair one deliberation on sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination ex officio and on the grounds for appeal

A. The ex officio judgment prosecutor changed the name of the crime to “Habitual larceny” in the proceeding of a new trial proceeding, and deleted “Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” in the applicable provisions of the Act, and applied for amendment of an indictment to add “Article 332 of the Criminal Act” to “the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes,” and the same was changed by this court’s permission.

In this respect, the judgment of the first instance can no longer be maintained.

However, even if there are the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder is recognized as having drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but in light of the means, methods, contents, etc. of the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Therefore, the above assertion is rejected.

4. Conclusion