All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (public prosecutor only)

B. On December 3, 2018, at around 18:50 on December 3, 2018, Defendant 1 was in the state of mental or physical disability or mental or physical disability under the influence of alcohol and non-licensed driving. 2) The prosecutor’s improper sentencing on the instant judgment.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

With respect to the judgment of the court below in the first and second instance, the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court below in the second instance, and this court decided to consolidate the above appeal cases.

The first and second original judgments with respect to the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the original judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. According to the records of the judgment on the Defendant’s mental and physical argument, the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at around 18:50 on December 3, 2018 and at the time of driving without a license is recognized.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant had made a concrete statement at an investigative agency on the background of the Defendant’s driving under this part of alcohol; (b) the Defendant’s drinking volume (1 illness); (c) blood alcohol level (0.160%) at the time of drinking; (d) the time and place of the instant crime; (e) the time and method of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things

It does not seem that there was or was a weak state.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

4. If so, the judgment of the court below is without examining the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above. The judgment of the court below is in accordance with Article 364 (2)