All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a mental disorder by delay at the time of committing the crime by the lower judgment.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2 months, and imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

A. The crime of the first instance judgment and the crime of the second instance judgment against the defendant as the defendant's each case of the judgment below appealed in the first instance court, are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in such a case, one punishment shall be imposed concurrently in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act.

B. In addition, according to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment on April 13, 2017, with prison labor for the purpose of preventing a structure and fire, etc. existing in the Seoul Southern District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 21, 2017.

As above, since each of the crimes against which judgment became final and conclusive and each of the crimes of the lower judgment are concurrent crimes by a group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, in such a case, the punishment should be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment in consideration of equity and the case of concurrent judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

(c)

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is such reason for reversal of authority.

3. According to the records of judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant was brain surgery at the time of having been conducted, and that he was a person with a disability of Grade II with a mental disability.

In addition, taking into account the motive and background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s investigative agency and the court below’s testimony and attitude at the trial court, etc., the Defendant is able to discern things or make decisions with delay at the time of the instant crime.