The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Despite the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, it was unfair that the lower court rejected the Defendant’s claim of mental disability.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the records reveal that the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with labor for obstruction of business, etc. at the Seoul Southern District Court on July 17, 2014, which was after the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, and the judgment became final and conclusive as is on July 25, 2014. The crime of this case in which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive on July 25, 2014 is concurrent crimes with the crime of this case and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Since the crime of this case in which the judgment of the court below and the above crime in which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive are to be determined at the same time after considering

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to a trial at the court, and below also examines the defendant's claim of mental disability.

3. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to the defendant's mental suffering claim, it is acknowledged that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but in light of the circumstances of the crime of this case, the method and method of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime of this case, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make a decision under the influence

Since it seems that the defendant did not have reached a state or weak, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the defendant.