The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Seized evidence No. 1 ( Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office...)

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles (mental and physical disorder) the Defendant’s criminal history, criminal method, mental and medical experience, and the environment in which the Defendant was faced with the impulse at the time of the instant crime, the lower court’s judgment that did not recognize the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The phenomenon of preventing a crime due to failure to suppress one's impulses is likely to be found even for normal persons. Barring special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a person who has such character defect as above requires an act that cannot be expected to restrain his impulses and to demand compliance with the law, barring special circumstances. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that, in principle, a defect of nature, such as impulses, does not constitute mental and physical disorder, which is the reason for reduction or exemption of punishment.

However, even if a defect of the same nature as that of the shock adjustment disorder is so serious that it can be evaluated to be equal to that of the person with mental disorder within its original meaning, the crime resulting therefrom shall be deemed to be a crime caused by mental or physical disorder (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do1541, May 24, 2002; 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009; 2010Do14512, Feb. 10, 201). (b) In light of the above legal principles, the health team and the defendant asserted that the above mistake is identical to that of the above facts, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion. The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence.