The judgment below

The part of the judgment No. 1 of the crime is reversed.

October shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who lost mental or physical loss or was mentally and physically weak, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the unfair defendant in sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 in its holding, and a fine of 500,000 won for the crime No. 2 in its holding) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental and physical loss or mental weakness, although the defendant was deemed to have drunked at the time of each of the crimes of this case, in view of the circumstances leading to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant was in a state of having no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, the above crime was committed with respect to the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below. The crime was committed against the victim E, who is a taxi driver, and was committed at the taxi, and the crime was not committed again, and the defendant was punished several times due to violent crimes. On February 14, 2016, the defendant was sentenced to the suspended sentence of imprisonment for two years on July 12, 2016 and was sentenced to the suspended sentence of imprisonment for two years on July 12, 2016, and committed the above crime during the appellate court trial, or the defendant was led to confession and reflect against the crime, and the above victim did not want the punishment against the defendant. Thus, the court below's punishment for the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below is inappropriate because the above victim did not want the punishment against the defendant by agreement with the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that sentencing for the first crime is unfair is reasonable.

2) In the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to the crime No. 2 in the holding, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it, and the first instance sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion.