The part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance excluding the compensation order shall be reversed, respectively.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Mental and physical disorder (the part of the judgment of the court below of the second instance) suffered from mental illness, etc., and was in the state of mental and physical disorder at the time of the instant crime. 2) The punishment of each judgment of the court below on unfair sentencing (the sentence of the court below of the first instance: imprisonment with prison labor for April, 200: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment of the first instance judgment against the prosecutor's defendant (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below ex officio decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the defendant. Each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below is concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus a single sentence should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the judgment below has the above reasons for ex officio destruction.

Even if the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, this paper examines it.

B. The judgment on the assertion of mental disorder was examined, and the defendant suffered from mental illness, etc. by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. The defendant drank to a certain extent at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

Even if it is recognized that the defendant used both mental and physical weakness, in light of various circumstances, such as the background and means of each of the crimes in this case, the behavior of the defendant before and after the crime, and the fact that the defendant makes a statement by memorying to some extent, which are recognized by each of the above evidence, the defendant cannot be deemed to have reached a state where the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime. Thus, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

3. As such, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance except the compensation order is examined as above.