The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) While the symptoms of mental illness at the time of each of the instant crimes were in the state of mental illness or mental and physical disability due to the symptoms of mental illness at the time of each of the instant crimes, the lower court limited them. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment

B. A prosecutor 1) Although the victim C’s statement to the effect that a mistake of facts Defendant 1 caused assault to the effect that he would have immediately cut off his anti-influence, based on relevant evidence, such as credibility, could be sufficiently recognized, the court below found the Defendant’s intention and intent of unlawful acquisition of the victim C by mistake of the facts, thereby failing to recognize this part of the charges of injury by robbery. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below of unfair sentencing on the Defendant is unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of judgment on the defendant's assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the defendant was subject to pharmacologic treatment with efficulic mental disorder and was the disabled of Grade II.

However, in light of the motive and background of the instant crime, the means and method of the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, was in a state of loss or lack of the ability to discern things due to the mental illness as above, and thus, the Defendant’s mental and physical disability assertion is without merit.

B. In the criminal trial procedure conducted in the form of a participatory trial that was introduced to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the judicial judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts, collective opinion presented to the full bench as to the recognition of facts by the jury composed of citizens who are cultivated through strict selection procedures is substantial direct deliberation.