A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Busan District Prosecutor's Office 2017 No. 8889.

A. The Defendant did not commit a crime identical to each of the facts charged in the instant case (as against the lower judgment No. 1 and 2).

B. The Defendant had mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the instant crime.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the original court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and confiscation, and imprisonment with prison labor for two months) is too heavy.

2. The Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below in entirety, and the court decided to consolidate the above appeal cases.

Each of the judgment below against the defendant shall be sentenced to one punishment for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

On the other hand, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts against the judgment of the court of first instance and the assertion of mental disorder against the judgment of the court of first instance are still subject to the judgment of the court of this case, and this is examined

3. Determination

A. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by each court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact, the judgment of each court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the record, such as the background, means, and method of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s act before and after the commission of each of the instant crimes, the judgment of the first instance court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder was lawfully adopted and examined, the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things at the time

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion.