The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A white dyef dye dye dye dye dye dye d.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to drinking at the time of the instant crime.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the Defendant’s reputation amount, etc., acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the claim of mental retardation, it cannot be seen that the Defendant was aware that he was in a state of drinking, but it does not seem that the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions, and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant is rejected.

B. B. Prior to the judgment on the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant in the judgment of ex officio, the stolen goods which were seized and the reason for return to the victim is clear shall be returned to the victim by the judgment (Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, one of the IMM siomanz (Evidence No. 2) was recognized as the stolen goods of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) under paragraph (3) of the same Article at the time of original judgment, and the fact that the owner owned or managed the above victim H or the above victim was recognized. Thus, the court below should have sentenced the above confiscated goods to return to the above victim by the judgment. However, the court below erred in omission and the above unlawful act affected the judgment. In this regard, the judgment below

3. Thus, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit, but the court below did not decide on the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing because there is a ground for ex officio reversal, and Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.