All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant suffered from mental illness at the time of committing the second instance judgment, and was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime.

B. Each judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.

The court held that each appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated and tried, and each offense against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished with a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above ex officio reversal argument, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is examined.

3. In light of the background leading up to each crime in the judgment of the second instance as to the defendant's mental suffering claim, the means and method, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

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

4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

[C] The judgment of the first instance court which changed the "each police interrogation protocol against the defendant" of the first instance court to the "written statement of the defendant," the summary of the facts constituting the crime and the evidence admitted by the court below to the summary of the facts constituting the crime and the evidence, and the judgment of the first instance court which changed the "each police interrogation protocol against the defendant" to the "written statement of the defendant.