All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Despite the fact that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of committing the crime of the first instance judgment, the first instance court erred by neglecting the reason for mitigation of responsibility.

B. Each sentence (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio examination is conducted prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

The first and second original judgments were sentenced to each of the defendants, and all of the defendants appealed, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above two appeals cases.

Each crime of the first and second original judgments against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the original judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

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

3. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant appears to have had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to intellectual disability at the time of committing the crime of the first instance judgment.

Furthermore, even if Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which was amended and enforced by Act No. 15982 on December 18, 2018, provides that "the act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, may be mitigated from punishment," and has been amended to voluntarily mitigate punishment against the act of a person with mental disorder, it is reasonable to apply the provision on statutory mitigation in accordance with mental disorder under the Criminal Act to the crime of the first instance judgment of the defendant in light of the following circumstances.

The defendant's mental disorder is justified.