The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case in a state of mental disorder caused by a mental disorder, such as a diversative personality disorder and sulfur disorder.

(b) The imposition of sentence (one year in prison);

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the state of mental disorder in the lower court’s ex officio determination (disorder of mental disorder determination) (the original trial record No. 27 pages), and this constitutes a statement of the fact that constitutes the grounds for mitigation of punishment under Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the lower court omitted its judgment and verbally omitted its judgment.

The judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained at this point.

B. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder (affirmative) is based on the records of this case: (a) from around 2011 to around 201, the Defendant was hospitalized at a mental hospital several times by her mother; (b) around September 30, 2016, the Defendant was hospitalized at a mental hospital located in Jung-gu, Seoul, and was hospitalized for eight times, such as being hospitalized at the Hospital as above; (c) on October 25, 2016, the Defendant was hospitalized at the Ma Hospital, N Hospital, Omental Health Doctor, P medical clinic, etc.; and (d) on March 11, 2019 on the day of the instant case, the Defendant was treated at the medical clinic of Qic Health Doctor, and was given prescription, and at the time of the instant occurrence, the Defendant was exempted from aquatic drugs, such as strokeing, and was given treatment and taking pulpy drugs.

In addition to the above circumstances, considering the circumstances and methods leading up to each of the crimes of this case, the victim's statement about changes in the defendant's situation at the time of taking advantage of the defendant's words and attitudes before and after the crime of this case, it can be acknowledged that the defendant was in a state of lacking mental and physical capabilities under Article 10 (1) of the Criminal Act at the time of each of the crimes of this case, but has weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness.

3. Conclusion.