The judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the rejection of application for compensation, and 2 and 3 original judgments, shall be reversed respectively.

Defendant .

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, who asserted mental disorder, was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability with difficulty to suppress impulse at the time of committing each of the instant occupational embezzlement and each of the larceny, etc.

Each judgment of the court below against the defendant claiming unfair sentencing (the first judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, and the second judgment of the court of the court of the court of the appeal: imprisonment for 4 months and the third judgment of the court of the court of the court of the appeal: imprisonment for 8 months

The prosecutor (as to the first and second original judgment), each of the first and second original judgments against the defendant is too unhued and unfair.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio and the prosecutor, the defendant and the prosecutor filed each appeal as above and tried in the trial concurrently. Each of the offenses against the defendant is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, one punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below against the defendant was no longer maintained.

The defendant's mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court even though the defendant's mental disorder had a ground for reversal ex officio under the above Paragraph (2) above, and according to the records, it is recognized that the defendant received certain mental health care due to stimulative disorder and shock disorder. Meanwhile, in light of all circumstances such as the circumstance leading to the crime of this case, method of the crime, the defendant's specific behavior before and after the crime, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each business embezzlement of this case and each larceny of this case.

Since it seems that the defendant's mental and physical disability cannot be seen as being or weak, we cannot accept the defendant's argument.

The conclusion is.