The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, committed the instant crime with mental disorder under the influence of alcohol and not fully equipped with the ability to discern things or make decisions, but the lower court erred by not recognizing mental disorder.

Judgment

In full view of all the circumstances, such as the method and background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, etc., which can be identified by the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant was aware of the drinking at the time of committing the crime, but thereby lost the ability to discern things or make decisions.

It was determined that such ability does not seem to have reached a weak state.

According to the statement of the mental appraisal of the defendant of the Medical Treatment and Custody Director prepared by the request for mental appraisal of the party decision, the defendant is presumed to have suffered from a harmful clothes (F10.1) of alcohol and other habits and impulses (F63.8). At the time of committing the crime of this case, it is presumed that at the time of committing the crime of this case, the defendant had weak ability to distinguish things and make decisions.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances such as the motive, background, means and attitudes of each of the instant crimes indicated in the record, and the Defendant’s behavior after the commission of each of the instant crimes, it can be recognized that the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the use of clothes and other habits and shock disorder harmful to alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which rejected the defendant's mental disorder is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendant's ground of appeal assigning

If so, the appeal by the defendant is reasonable, so it is in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.