The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. Since the defendant, under the influence of alcohol, has committed a crime with mental disability and has committed a crime in a state of mental disability, the punishment should be mitigated.

B. The sentence of the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in the course of sentencing.

2. ex officio determination ex officio, the Defendant asserted the state of mental or physical disability in the lower court, and this constitutes a statement of fact that constitutes a ground for mitigation of punishment under Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the lower court omitted its determination, and thus, the lower court’s judgment cannot be maintained at this point.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed as provided by Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

[Judgment of the court below] The summary of criminal facts and evidence admitted by a party member of the summary of criminal facts and evidence is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 3

Application of Statutes

1. Article 366, Article 314 (1), or Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. It is recognized that the defendant committed a crime as stated in its holding after considering the judgment on the defendant's claim of mental disability under Article 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the fact that the defendant was guilty of drinking alcohol, in light of the circumstances of drinking, the details of the crime, and the past criminal records, etc., it is not determined that the defendant was detrimental to the defendant's ability to discern the object or make a decision at the time of the crime, and thus, the defendant'

The Defendant’s reason for sentencing was as of February 4, 2014 and July 26, 2014.