All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

A fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was suffering from mental illness due to alcohol addiction and was in a state of mental disorder at the time of stopping the crime in the judgment of the third court.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 5 million; the fine of KRW 2 million; the fine of KRW 3 million; and the fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

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

This Court held that three appeals cases against the defendant are consolidated and tried, and since the crimes in the decision of each court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

Furthermore, according to the records, the defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Busan District Court on September 19, 2014 and confirmed on December 6, 2014. As above, the crime for which judgment became final and the crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and the crime under the latter part of the judgment of the court of first instance is determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity and the case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Since the application of the law of first instance omitted the concurrent crimes,

B. However, the defendant's above assertion of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is therefore examined.

According to the records, it does not seem that the defendant was aware that he had drinking at the time when he committed the crime in the third instance judgment, but did not seem to lack the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol addiction.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is examined as above.