The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to his or her behavior or due diligence disorder.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before ex officio determination on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the crime of special larceny among each of the instant offenses is a crime falling under Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act, and the statutory penalty is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years. Thus, in order to sentence the Defendant, who does not have any legal grounds for mitigation, a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for less than one year should have been mitigated pursuant to Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by omitting such reduction of the amount of punishment and by exceeding the scope of the applicable sentences for eight months.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's argument about mental and physical weakness is still subject to a trial by this court, despite the reasons for reversal ex officio.

B. According to the records of determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, even though it is recognized that the defendant suffered from disorder of activity and caution, the defendant clearly memorys and makes statements about the motive or background of the crime of this case, the disposal of stolen goods, etc. during the investigation process, and in light of the background of the crime of this case, the method and method of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it seems that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, the defendant's argument of mental and physical weakness is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's mental and physical weakness are without merit, but the judgment of the court below is unfair for sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor on the ground that the above ex officio reversal grounds exist