The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1, at the time of each of the instant crimes, the lower court recognized that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of the instant crime, and argued that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability, and that each of the instant crimes was committed in a state of mental disability or mental disability in the statement of grounds for appeal dated November 22, 2018. The Defendant’s defense counsel stated that the Defendant’s assertion of mental disability was against the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles in the case of the Defendant’s assertion of mental disability during the second trial of the trial of the lower court. As such, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of each of the instant crimes is in a state of mental disorder, the grounds for

B. Prosecutor 1) Even though the Defendant, at the time of each of the instant crimes, was in a state of mental disability or mental health at the time of the instant crimes, it constitutes “free act in the cause” under Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act, and thus, mitigation of unfair sentencing due to mental and physical disorder cannot be acknowledged. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant asserted that he was assaulted against the victim by the police officer dispatched to the scene at the time of committing the crime as set forth in paragraph (1) of the lower judgment, and that he was also subject to assault from the victim (it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder immediately because he was unable to memory at the time of committing the crime after the police investigation, although the Defendant stated to the effect that he had no memory at the time of committing the crime). ② As to the crime as set forth in paragraph (2) of the lower judgment, the Defendant was partly aware of the fact that he assaulted the victim G