The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and four months and by a fine of three hundred thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness (a state of mental or physical disorder).

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the violation of the Road Traffic Act by misapprehending the legal principles (the violation of the Road Traffic Act), Article 148-2(3) and Article 45 of the Road Traffic Act, which are stated in the bill of indictment, are obvious errors in Articles 154 subparag. 3 and 45 of the Road Traffic Act, but the court below rendered a judgment not guilty on the ground that the prosecutor’s name was sought by the prosecutor or the ex officio was not corrected. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The above sentencing of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor applied for the modification of the indictment to “Article 148-2(3) of the Road Traffic Act” under the applicable law in relation to the violation of the Road Traffic Act at the trial of the party, and the application for the modification of the indictment to “Article 154 subparag. 3 of the Road Traffic Act” was approved by the court and the subject of the judgment was changed.

B. The new violation of the Road Traffic Act is found guilty as shown below, and the charges of violation of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., which the court below found guilty and the charges of violation of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, etc., which the court below found guilty, should be sentenced to a single sentence in the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the court below

However, the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. The evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s mental and physical disability argument.