We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the crime stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

B. The punishment sentenced by each court below against the defendant is too inappropriate.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

On the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant, the defendant appealed, and this court conducted a consolidated trial on each of the above cases.

Each of the crimes committed by the Defendant constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single sentence should be imposed simultaneously pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the above judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. Determination as to the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness: Provided, That we examine the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness argument.

According to the records, in light of the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Even if the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to excessive drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, it was deemed that the Defendant had the weak ability to

Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that the preceding two paragraphs shall not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person's mental disorder. This provision includes not only an intentional act but also an act of free in the cause due to negligence, and may have predicted the occurrence of danger (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6758, Nov. 25, 2005). However, even if the occurrence of danger was foreseeable, it is subject to the application (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6758, Nov. 25, 2005).