All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A fine of 1. A and B of the judgment of the court of first instance is imposed against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds for appeal by the Defendant (the first judgment) (1) The Defendant was drunk at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disability.

(2) The first instance court’s sentence (one million won by fine, ten months by imprisonment) on the grounds that the sentence is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s judgment of the lower court’s second sentence of unreasonable sentencing (No. 2 of the judgment of the lower court) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.

As the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court of second instance decided to jointly examine the above two appeals cases. The first and second crimes against the defendant are concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to the first and second crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the first and second judgment cannot be maintained as they are, since they are concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's claim of mental disability against the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of mental disability, even though the Defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes, in light of the Defendant’s ordinary amount of drinking, the background leading up to the Defendant’s commission of the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, and therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

4. Thus, the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen earlier, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not required to decide on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor.