The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing a public prosecution regarding the crime of assault and intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, and only the Defendant appealed against the guilty portion among the lower judgment, and thus, the part dismissing the public prosecution among the lower judgment that the both parties did not appeal was separately finalized.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. At the time of each of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) had physical and mental weakness, such as alcohol ozone, sulvel, and sulphy; and (b) had considerable quantity of alcohol to discern things or make decisions; (c) was in a state of mental and physical loss or weak mental or physical weakness.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the defendant is deemed to have been engaged in drinking to a certain extent at the time of each of the facts charged in this case, but in full view of various circumstances such as the background and details of the crime in this case, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime in this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime in this case. Thus, the above argument by the defendant

B. The Defendant committed the instant crime with regard to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, even though the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was so notified, but the Defendant committed the instant crime without having been able to commit the instant crime by carrying dangerous articles, such as golf loans, etc. with the victim’s house at the new wall time. The crime is very bad, and the Defendant was punished for the same crime several times. In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime without having been able to commit the instant crime against female-child organizations living together in the past.