All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant (contribute of the original judgment) was under the influence of alcohol at the time when he committed the instant crime, and the Defendant was under the weak ability to discern things or make decisions. 2) In light of the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of an unfair sentencing, and the circumstances and degree of the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence sentenced by the lower court (Article 1: 1: imprisonment with prison labor: 6 months and 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the nature of the crime by the prosecutor (limited to the first instance judgment) is not good, the sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. As the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, each appeal case was tried concurrently at the court of first instance. As long as each crime of the judgment of the court below is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below should be rendered simultaneously and a single sentence should be sentenced

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

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

3. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the method and content of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior and attitude before and after the instant crime, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. The defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit, but the judgment of the court below is without merit, so it is necessary to judge the defendant and the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing.