The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the third crime in which the defendant's judgment was held, the crimes of 1, 2, 4 through 7 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On January 24, 2019, according to the records of this case, the defendant was sentenced to one year of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court on January 24, 2019, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on February 1, 2019. The crime of subparagraph 3 of the judgment of the court below against the defendant and the above crime of fraud, etc., for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced in consideration of equity in cases where the judgment

Therefore, even though crimes Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7 of the judgment of the court below as well as No. 3 of the judgment of the court below should be imposed separately, the court below erred in imposing two punishments, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as they are.

B. Despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant had been hospitalized in a mental hospital or received a mental treatment before, and that the defendant had been showing symptoms in need of mental treatment while living in custody due to the crime of this case.

However, in full view of the circumstances such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the method and circumstances before and after the instant crime, the statement of the victims at the time, etc., the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed the instant crime in a state where the mental disease lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion.