The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

As to the first crime in the judgment of the court below, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) The Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to mental illness at the time of each of the instant crimes.

(2) Each sentence of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the first sentence on the basis of unfair sentencing: 2 years of suspended execution in 1 year of imprisonment without prison labor; 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the lower court by the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder, it is acknowledged that the Defendant was subject to a psychological evaluation on December 28, 2012, which was after the instant traffic accident, and the Defendant was evaluated as falling under the “level of mental retardation” of his intellectual ability and social adaptation ability. However, in light of the following: (a) details and method of each of the instant crimes; (b) the circumstances before and after the instant crimes; and (c) the details and statement made by the police immediately after the instant crimes; and (d) the Defendant did not seem to have in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness at the time of each of the instant crimes; and therefore

B. The part of the crime No. 1 of the judgment on the argument of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor (1) in the judgment on the argument of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is recognized as the Defendant, there is an error against the Defendant, and the victim H agreed to the Defendant’s punishment of KRW 10 million in the judgment of the court below. The victim N, F, and J did not want the Defendant’s punishment before the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case. The Defendant did not have a criminal record at all prior to the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case, and an equitable consideration should be taken into account with the case of special larceny in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. On the other hand, the Defendant’s negligence causing the traffic accident in violation of the signal at the intersection, the injury suffered by eight victims due to the said accident, and there is a serious injury requiring medical treatment by approximately eight weeks among them, and there is no agreement with the victims of the traffic accident