The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The defendant of mental or physical disability or mental disability has committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol while he or she lacks the ability or decision-making capacity to discern things under the influence of alcohol.

Nevertheless, the court below committed a mistake that did not reduce mental and physical disability or mental disorder.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of the records, the Defendant, at the Changwon District Court on March 17, 2016, sentenced 1 year and 2 months, additional collection of 200,000 won to imprisonment on the grounds of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence), etc., and confirmed on June 9, 2016. As such, the crime for which the above judgment became final and the crime of this case are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of this case are determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower judgment cannot be maintained in this respect.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental or physical disability is still subject to the adjudication of this court, and this will be examined below.

B. The court below held that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case under the lack of the ability to discern an object or make a decision by treating the defendant as being drunkly under the influence of alcohol and lacks the ability to discern an object, and thus, reduced the degree of mental disability. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the court below did not reduce the degree of mental disability is without merit, and further, the defendant did not have the ability to discern the object or make a decision at all at the time of committing the crime of this case, and therefore,

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is justified on the ground of ex officio reversal.