All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the first instance judgment, Defendant 1’s crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) committed by the Defendant on September 14, 2012 among the lower judgment of the first instance court is under the influence of alcohol. In light of the various circumstances of the instant case, the punishment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the first instance court against the Defendant is too unreasonable. (ii) The sentence imposed by the first instance court against the Defendant by the Prosecutor No. 1 is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment (one million won of fine) sentenced by the second court against the defendant against the judgment of the court of second instance is too unreasonable.

C. The Defendant’s crime of the judgment of the court of third instance against the judgment of the court of third instance is under the influence of alcohol, and the punishment of the court of third instance (two years of imprisonment) declared by the court of third instance against the Defendant is too unreasonable in light of the various circumstances of this case.

2. Determination

A. Upon ex officio determination, the court below sentenced the defendant to the above three cases without applying the precedent of concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act as a result of the judgment after the court below rendered separate hearings to the defendant in Incheon District Court 2012 senior order 1486, 1840, Incheon District Court 2012 senior order 2012 senior order 4513, Incheon District Court 2012 senior order 2012 senior order 1185, and the case of concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act. The defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments. The prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment below against the court below 1, and the court below decided to concurrently examine the above three cases. Since the crimes of the court below 1, 2, and 3 against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentence of concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act shall be determined within the scope of punishment set by applying the precedent of concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act.

However, the defendant's claim of mental disability against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 3 even for the above reasons for ex officio destruction is still in this court.