The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

The Defendant alleged the determination of the allegation of mental disorder was in the state of mental disorder or mental disability at the time of the instant crime.

Judgment

According to the records, even though the Defendant was aware that he had drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, considering the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the result of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant did not seem to have “the ability to discern himself or make a decision” at the time of committing the instant crime.

Meanwhile, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which was amended by Act No. 15982 on December 18, 2018, provides that "the act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, may be mitigated from punishment."

Therefore, even if the Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime, the punishment can be voluntarily mitigated. Therefore, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment solely on the ground that the Defendant did not have any legal mitigation due to mental disability.

This argument is not acceptable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) on the argument of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The crime of this case was committed by the defendant while he/she was friendly with the victim who was friendly at an elementary school alumni meeting, resulting in the real name of the victim by walking the victim's right eye due to his/her appearance. In light of the background, means and methods of the crime, the degree of damage resulting therefrom, etc., the nature and the circumstances of the crime are not very good.

The victim, due to the real name of the right side of the city bus company, was retired from office by the driver.

The defendant has been punished for violence crimes even before, and in 2015, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective crime, a deadly weapon, etc.).