The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny in the Seoul Western District Court on December 24, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 1, 2015. On February 17, 2016, the Incheon District Court sentenced the Defendant to two years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the purpose of obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 25, 2016.

Since both the crime of this case and each of the above crimes against the defendant for which judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment shall be determined in consideration of equity in cases where judgment is rendered at the same time under Article 39(1)

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, the above argument of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. We examine the determination of the claim of mental suffering, and the fact that the defendant suffered from a disease, such as mental fission, is recognized, but in light of various circumstances such as the course, process, means and method of the crime in this case, and the defendant's behavior in this court, it does not seem that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder at the time of the crime in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal.

[Discied Judgment] Summary of criminal facts and evidence shall be the Court.