All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The reasoning for the appeal by the prosecutor (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The Defendant’s grounds for appeal was under the influence of liquor at the time of each of the instant crimes, and the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of various circumstances such as the Defendant’s conduct before and after each crime, and the content of each of the crimes in this case, it is acknowledged that the Defendant had drinking at the time of each of the crimes in this case, but accepted the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of the crime.

Even if the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime several times under the influence of alcohol and had repeatedly committed acts such as breathing to neighboring residents, etc. when he/she voluntarily voluntarily withdraws from alcohol, it was confirmed that he/she was under the care provided by hospital under the conditions that he/she was under the influence of medical treatment, such as the existence of alcohol and fladation disorder, etc. In the end, the Defendant could be deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol even though he/she was aware that he/she would have been under the influence of alcohol even if he/she under the influence of alcohol.

Therefore, the defendant's ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the above crime, such as the defendant's assertion, was somewhat depreciated.

Even if the defendant voluntarily caused the above conditions, the defendant constitutes "a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and has caused mental disorder by his/her own person" as stipulated in Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act, and thus cannot be mitigated due to mental disorder under the Criminal Act. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mental disability caused by drinking of the defendant cannot be accepted.

B. We examine both parties’ assertion of unfair sentencing with respect to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor at once.

The defendant has been punished for more than 20 times for violent crimes, and the defendant is subject to withdrawal of alcohol even in his/her ordinary court.