The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability and injury.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the facts charged of this case as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Bribery) No. 3 in the attached Table 1 of the crime sight table 1 of the court below.

When the confession of a defendant is the only evidence against him, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt. Thus, in case where a defendant is found guilty on the basis of only the confession of the defendant without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there is an error of law that affects the conclusion of the judgment

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant acquired KRW 10,00 from the victim was based on the evidence indicated by the lower court and the record was examined, and even if the Defendant’s acquisition of KRW 10,00 from the victim was conducted on February 24, 2013, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evidence as well as by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evidence indicated by the lower court. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of evidence to support the Defendant’s acquisition of KRW 10,00 from the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty solely on the confession of the defendant was erroneous in violation of Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

However, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant is deemed to have served alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but the defendant is also deemed to have served alcohol prior to committing the instant crime.