A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

With respect to an applicant for an attachment order, one year shall be applied.

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical disability or mental disability due to drinking, water exemption, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the Prosecutor filed a request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device with respect to the Defendant on October 11, 2016 at the appellate court prior to the trial prior to the transfer of the judgment, and the previous appellate court prior to the transfer of the case decided to hold a joint trial on October 19, 2016. As such, the request for attachment order shall be examined together with the Defendant’s case and the judgment shall be sentenced simultaneously. As seen below, the lower court’s judgment cannot be maintained as it is, since it is the basis for accepting the request for attachment order as seen below.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's argument about mental disorder still is subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined.

B. We examine the Defendant’s mental disorder claim. In full view of the following: (a) the process and content of the instant crime committed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; (b) the method and method; (c) the circumstances before and after the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking or taking clothes exempted from water, as alleged in the instant crime.

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground of the above ex officio reversal is based on Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.