The judgment below

Of the judgments of the court below, the part concerning the second crime is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental suffering from mental illness, such as alcohol addiction and depression.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000 and the fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

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

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the trial court, the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor at the Suwon District Court on April 20, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 8, 2016.

Therefore, since the crime of false accusation and the crime of Article 2 in the decision of the court below against the defendant, which became final and conclusive, are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a punishment for the crime of Article 2 in the decision of the court below shall be imposed in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent judgment pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, and in this regard, the part concerning the crime

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability and the argument of unreasonable sentencing on the No. 1 of the judgment of the court below are still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will examine the following provisions.

3. According to the records on the determination of mental and physical disability, it does not appear that the defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case, in light of the circumstance leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing regarding the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,