All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s failure to recognize the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder is unlawful in spite of the lack of ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the above crimes, such as where the Defendant was showing symptoms that the Defendant was unable to memory in a net order due to symptoms following the surgery.

B. Each sentence (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for six months and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for three months) imposed on the accused by the original court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, this Court tried to jointly examine each appeal case against the judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below against the Defendant is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment, which increased concurrent offenses pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

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.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion on mental and physical disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant had undergone surgery and treatment on his head, but in light of various circumstances, such as the course, process, means and method of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after each of the instant crimes, it does not seem that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.