All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of thirty million won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant 1 was under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant was in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapons, etc.) on October 30, 2013 in a state of mental disorder.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (Article 1: 6 months of imprisonment, fine of 300,000 won, fine of 3 million won: 200,000 won) by the court below on the sole ground of unjust sentencing is unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the lower court’s second instance judgment is unreasonable as it is too unfilled.

2. We examine ex officio the judgment of the court below on the first and second cases. The prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance against the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court of second instance decided to hold two appeals jointly. The crimes of the court of first and second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be imposed within the scope of one of the concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below on the defendant cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's argument of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. According to the record of the judgment on the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant was found to have been drinking alcohol at the time of committing the crime, in light of the defendant's reputation, the background and process of committing the crime, the means and method, the defendant's behavior before and after committing the crime, etc., it does not seem that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime. Even if so, Article 10 (2) of the Criminal Act applies to the defendant's act because the defendant's act constitutes a person who predicted danger and caused a mental disorder by drinking alcohol. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is groundless

4. Accordingly, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit, but the judgment of the court below is without merit as the above grounds for ex officio reversal.