The part of the judgment of the court of first instance that interferes with the business of the defendant and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime committed in the judgment of the first instance court on the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder is a crime committed in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking.

B. The respective sentences of the judgment below that was unfair in sentencing (the first instance judgment: the imprisonment of April and the fine of KRW 500,000, and the second instance judgment: the imprisonment of April) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of each of the above appeals cases.

Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a single punishment shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act for the crime of interference with duties and resolution of KRW 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the part concerning interference with duties among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained any more.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's argument of mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, and is judged below.

In addition, since the judgment of the court of first instance sentenced different types of punishment on the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the above part shall not be reversed ex officio only on the ground of consolidated proceedings.

B. According to the record of the determination on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though the Defendant committed a crime as indicated in the judgment of the first instance court under the influence of alcohol, it does not seem that the Defendant lost or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, taking into account the background of the crime, the process of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, etc.

The defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

(c)

The judgment of the court below on the part of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act in the judgment of the court below, and even though the defendant had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime or the crime of this case, the government offices are very rough.