A. Defendant 1) The Defendant with a mental disorder was in a state of lack of normal rigrative defense under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing a crime interfering with one’s own business on November 24, 2016 as indicated in the lower judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor - The above sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unjust.

2. Determination

A. According to each evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing a crime interfering with one’s own business on November 24, 2016 as indicated in the lower judgment.

However, in light of the background leading up to the above crime, specific method of the crime, the defendant's behavior and attitude shown before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant was in a state where the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, or had weak ability to do so.

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

B. We also examine both the defendant and prosecutor's arguments regarding sentencing.

The fact that the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and reflects all of the crimes of this case is favorable to the defendant.

Meanwhile, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime after having been sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor due to interference with the same criminal affairs, and completed the execution of the sentence, and then failed to recover or agree with the victims, criminal records including the same crime have reached several times, and criminal records including the same crime have been repeatedly committed during the State, are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

When comprehensively considering the overall circumstances and conditions of sentencing such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, etc., the sentencing of the court below does not seem to be too weak or unfair. Therefore, each of the arguments by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

3. If so, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is justified.