The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the penalty (two million won of a fine) declared by the court below is too unhued.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

(a) In case where the defendant is suspected of mental disorder, and there is no defense counsel for the defendant, the court shall appoint a defense counsel ex officio (Article 33(1)5 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the case falling under such a case shall not be open or examined without a defense counsel;

(Article 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act). According to the records of this case, the defendant is deemed to be a person suspected of mental disorder, such as suffering from scarcity-type telegraphs, etc. (the original court recognized it and recognized it as mental disorder mitigation), and the court below tried the case by revising the case without ex officio without appointing a defense counsel in this case where there is no private defense counsel. As such, all of the litigation acts conducted in illegal trial proceedings are null and void, the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that affected the judgment in violation of the law.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. In addition, according to the records of this case, the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Intrusion) at the Daegu District Court on March 26, 2015, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on April 3, 2015. The crime of this case in the crime of this case is related to latter concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for the crime of this case in consideration of equity with the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced punishment without omission of the above concurrent crimes, and in this regard, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is based on the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing since the above reasons for reversal are as above.