1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months; and

3. 40 hours against the defendant.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the defendant’s case and the part of the case for which the request to attach an attachment order was filed, and as such, there is no benefit of appeal regarding the part for which the request to attach an attachment order

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part regarding the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

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

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. First of all, we examine the defendant's claim of mental disability.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court. The defendant was judged to be the second citizen service (exemption from military service) in the draft physical for entering the military on June 12, 2007 on the ground of the boundary intelligence and mental retardation in the draft physical for entering the military, and Qua who conducted a mental diagnosis against the defendant in the trial of the court of the case also diagnosed the defendant as a "an ordinary intellectual disability" with abstract thinking or social judgment that the mental disorder of the defendant could be deemed to have been in a state of mental disorder whose ability to distinguish things was reduced due to such mental disorder at the time of the crime of this case, and taking full account of the motive and background of the crime of this case, the defendant's attitude expressed in the trial of the court of the trial at the time of the crime of this case, it is determined that the defendant was in a state that there was a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions due to the intellectual disorder at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, even though the punishment of the defendant should be mitigated pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act for the crime of this case, the court below shall reduce the punishment for mental illness.