The judgment of the first instance and the second instance are reversed, respectively.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below (the second judgment).

B. The sentencing of the lower court (Article 1 and 2 of the lower court’s judgment: 2 years of suspension of execution and community service and 80 hours in August, and 2 of the lower court’s judgment: 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of the judgment on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though the defendant was deemed to have a drinking condition at the time of committing the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, in light of the defendant's reputation, the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the crime as

Since it seems that the defendant's mental and physical disability cannot be seen as being or weak, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court rendered ex officio a judgment on the Defendant’s each of the above decisions, which sentenced the Defendant to two years of suspension of execution and community service and 80 hours of imprisonment for the crimes of the first instance judgment to eight months of imprisonment, and six months of imprisonment for each of the crimes of the second instance judgment, after completing each of the hearings on the Defendant’s respective grounds of unfair sentencing under the Changwon District Court Decision Nos. 1 and 2013No. 164 and 2013No. 2013 and 431. The Defendant filed an appeal against each of the above decisions, and the lower court decided to jointly deliberate on the above two appeals cases.

However, since the first and second judgment against the defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to impose a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the first and second judgment against the defendant cannot be exempted from reversal.

4. In conclusion, the first and second judgment of the court below is all held.