1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal in light of the record, the lower court’s determination rejecting the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder merely because the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime and did not appear to have existed beyond this time. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is just to determine that the act of the defendant committed by the victims to Gemangium of this case does not constitute "hazardous goods" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, since it is difficult to view that the victims suffered harm to their life or body due to the act committed by the victims to Gemangium of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the act constitutes "hazardous goods".

B. Whether Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) applies (1) Article 5-4(5) of the Aggravated Punishment Act provides that “A person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for a crime under Articles 329 through 331, 333 through 336, 340 and 362 of the Criminal Act or the attempts thereof, who again committed such crime, is punished as a repeated offense.”

Meanwhile, in a case where a sentence is invalidated by the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, etc., the legal effect of the sentence becomes extinct in the future, and thus, the sentence cannot be deemed to have been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor under Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Lapse of Punishment, etc.

In addition, in light of the legislative intent of the law on the invalidation of punishment, more than twice in the past.