The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is a crime of 1-1 (1) and 2-2 (1) of the 2015 High Order 8752 (1) of the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was suffering from mental illness at the time of each of the instant crimes, and had weak intent or ability to discern things under the influence of alcohol.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the records show that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year to imprisonment with labor at the Busan District Court on November 24, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 2 of the same year. Of the above criminal facts, the crime of fraud, etc., for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the crime of subparagraph 1-2 and subparagraph 2-1 of Article 2015 [Attachment 8752] and Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment should be sentenced by dividing the punishment with regard to the crimes under subparagraphs 1-1 and 2-1 of Article 8752, which were committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment, and the remaining crimes committed after the final and conclusive judgment. However, since all of the above crimes are deemed concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower court’s judgment cannot be maintained in this respect.

However, the defendant's assertion of mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

B. According to the record of the determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, it is found that the Defendant received medical treatment due to brain-dead in 2008, etc. and drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes, but, in light of the content of each of the instant crimes and the circumstances such as the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crimes, the Defendant had weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to such symptoms or drinking at the time of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

3. The judgment of the court below is correct.