A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

A. Defendant 1) At the time of physical and mental weakness, the Defendant had committed each of the instant crimes in a state of mental and physical weakness without any memory, under the influence of alcohol.

2) The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 3 million, KRW 400,000,000, and KRW 40,000,000) against an unjust defendant for sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the legal principles, larceny of intrusion by night room is a crime falling under Article 330 of the Criminal Act, and the statutory penalty is prescribed only by imprisonment with labor for not more than 10 years, and thus, cannot be sentenced to a fine, the lower court, in so doing, sentenced the Defendant to a fine in violation

2) The lower court’s sentence (3 million won in penalty, 40 hours in order to complete a program) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, means, and methods of each of the instant crimes, the details of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant cannot be deemed to have failed to have reached a state where the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

B. In determining the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, larceny by intrusion at night was not sentenced to a fine for not more than ten years under Article 330 of the Criminal Act. However, the lower court sentenced the sentence of a fine not exceeding a statutory penalty, with an excessive penalty, even though the statutory penalty cannot be sentenced to a fine.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the prosecutor's assertion is justified.

3. As such, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit, but the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles is with merit, so the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Articles 364(2) and 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without further proceeding to decide on the unfair argument of sentencing between the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and the following is again decided after