A fine of 100,000 won shall be imposed on each of the crimes listed in paragraphs 1 through 6 and 8 through 11 of the judgment of the defendant.

A. Under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case under the condition of mental and physical disability or mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 150,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence in the previous records in the judgment of the court below in the summary of the evidence, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months for fraud, etc. at the Cheongju District Court on March 29, 2013, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 6, 2013. On June 4, 2015, the Daejeon District Court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for one year for special larceny on June 12, 2015, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 12, 2015. Accordingly, each remaining minor crime punishment law except for the defendant's possession of the disturbance of drinking alcohol (2016Da324) against each other on October 21, 2014 (2016Da37) is related to the above special larceny for which the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Crimes Act due to the disturbance of drinking alcohol on October 21, 2014 is related to concurrent crimes under Article 37 latter part of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, in accordance with the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the punishment should be imposed separately on the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act except for the disturbance of drinking alcohol as of October 21, 2014, and the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act due to disturbance of drinking alcohol on October 21, 2014. However, the punishment should be determined in consideration of the equity in cases where each judgment is rendered simultaneously with the crime for which each judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced a single punishment by deeming that all of the crimes in its judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the argument of mental disorder, the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case.