A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

A. Defendant 1) Physical and mental weak (as to the lower court’s judgment Nos. 1 and 2), the Defendant had a mental and physical weak condition due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

2) The sentence of each court below’s unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: the imprisonment of 8 months and the second instance judgment: the imprisonment of 6 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s 2nd sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on each of the above grounds for appeal, prior to the judgment on ex officio, the court below examined the above grounds for appeal and sentenced the defendant to the above punishment. The defendant was the first and the second judgment, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the second judgment, and the court of the first and the second trials decided to jointly examine the above appeal cases. Each of the crimes of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from all reversal.

Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained due to the above reasons for reversal, but the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is still subject to the judgment of the court of this court, and this is examined.

B. In full view of the following: (a) acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness; (b) comprehensively taking account of the background leading up to the instant crime; (c) the means and method of the crime; (d) the Defendant’s act before and after the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, even though the Defendant was aware that drinking was in a drunken state, the Defendant was in

As such, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below has a ground for ex officio reversal, such as Paragraph 2.