The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below are all reversed.

A fine of 2,00,000 won shall be imposed on the accused.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the crime of the second instance judgment, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 1,00,000, the second instance judgment: the fine of KRW 2,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the first court rendered a judgment against the defendant as Seoul Eastern District Court 2013DaMa2577, and the second court rendered a judgment against the defendant as Seoul Eastern District Court 2013MaMa519, respectively. The defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgment below, and the court rendered a decision to concurrently examine the above two appeals. The first and the second court rendered a decision that each of the offenses which the court below found guilty is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single sentence should be imposed within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the first and the second judgment cannot be maintained as they are.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's mental disorder, the defendant could have been found to have served in drinking at the time of committing the crime of the court below's second instance judgment. However, in light of the defendant's reputation, the circumstances leading to the crime, the means and method of committing the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime.

Since it cannot be deemed that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the defendant's assertion of mental disorder is without merit.

3. Conclusion.