The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by six months of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with the purport that "the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective violence, deadly weapons, etc.)" is "special assault" and "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" is "Article 261 and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" as "Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this regard as it was changed by permission.

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the above claim of mental disability of the defendant is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the claim of mental retardation, it is not deemed that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, in light of the following: although the defendant is found to drink and commit the crime in this case, the defendant could have been subject to criminal punishment by assaulting another person even prior to the occurrence of the crime in this case; the background leading up to the crime in this case; the means and methods of the crime in this case; and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it does not appear that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above. The judgment below is again reversed and it is followed through