The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability or mental disability.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental disorder, although the defendant was found to have received mental and physical treatment due to alcohol dependence at the time of the crime of this case, considering the circumstances leading to the crime of this case recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the means and method of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. The Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant had four identical criminal records, including one time of suspended sentence, and committed the instant crime during the period of suspended execution, and the instant crime was committed by intrusion upon another’s residence at night, and the fact that the nature of the instant crime was bad is unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable in light of the following factors: (a) the defendant reflects his mistake through the life of four months of detention, (b) the degree of damage is relatively somewhat somewhat weak; (c) the victim wants to take the defendant's wife by mutual consent with the victim; (d) the defendant committed the crime of this case after drinking alcohol; (e) the defendant committed the crime of this case by contingently after drinking; and (e) other matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, as shown in the records and arguments of this case, are considered.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is justified.