All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence of imprisonment (the imprisonment of eight months and the fine of five hundred thousand won) is deemed unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was physically and mentally weak due to the state of Maule, Maule, and alcohol dependence.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness argument, the fact that the Defendant was under alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime is acknowledged, but the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

not recognized, and even if so, there was such a state.

Inasmuch as the Defendant committed a violent crime, such as property damage, etc., under the influence of alcohol several times prior to the instant case, it constitutes a case where, even though he could have predicted the occurrence of risk that could at the time of drinking alcohol and block the crime of property damage, etc. again, he/she could have caused mental and physical disorder. In such a case, mitigation of punishment on the ground of mental and physical weakness is not recognized pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do99, Jul. 28, 1992). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

B. As to the unjust assertion of sentencing by the prosecutor and the defendant, ① the defendant's acknowledgement of the crime of this case is against the defendant, and the amount of damage from the crime of damage to the property of this case seems to be less severe is favorable circumstances.

② The Defendant was punished for the crime of destroying property or the crime of damaging public goods at 20 times, and was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months due to the crime of destroying property, and was sentenced to imprisonment for the crime of destroying property, and did not constitute one month after release on February 19, 2016 and again commits another crime of the same kind during the period of repeated crime; there is no change of circumstances that may be additionally reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment; and ③ The circumstances leading to the instant crime.