A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

A person who has been seized (Evidence No. 1).

Defendant

A person with mental disability was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing a crime in the first instance judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below 1 and 2 of unfair sentencing (the first instance court's imprisonment: June, and the second instance court's imprisonment: May) is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of the second instance is too uneasible.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

In the first instance, the appeal against the judgment below was combined.

Each of the judgments of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment of a single sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, all of the judgment below shall be reversed.

In conclusion, the judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, and the judgment below is reversed in entirety, and it is again decided as follows.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability still is subject to the judgment of this court, and we will review below.

Although the Defendant appears to have served alcohol at the time of committing the crime in the first instance judgment, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s act before and after the crime was committed; (b) the details and attitude of the Defendant’s statement made by the investigative agency; and (c) the degree of memory of the crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant’s ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime was weak

The defendant's above assertion is not accepted, while the defendant alleged to the effect that he was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime in the judgment of the court below. However, considering all the above circumstances, the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing