The judgment below Nos. 1 and 2 shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

A prosecutor of the lower judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (Defendant 1 and 2’s judgment of the lower court)’s unreasonable sentencing (as to the first and second judgment of the lower court), each sentence (as to the first and second judgment of the lower court: imprisonment with prison labor: 4 months) that the lower court rendered against the Defendant is too heavy or unreasonable. 2) The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, so as to lack the ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The prosecutor (the third judgment of the lower court)’s sentence (7 million won of a fine) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Regarding the judgment ex officio (the first and second judgment) No. 1 and second judgment, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant, the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below and conducted a joint examination at the court of the first and second judgment, each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of the court of the first and second judgment against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be subject to one punishment within the scope of punishment aggravated pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the first and second judgment against the defendant cannot be maintained.

In addition, on May 1, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the purpose of interference with business at the Seoul Eastern District Court on August 1, 2013, and the suspended sentence was revoked on June 10, 2014 and the execution of the sentence was completed on June 14, 2015. As such, each crime in the judgment of the court below in the first and second instance constitutes a repeated crime committed within three years after the execution of the sentence was completed. The first and the second court erred in omission of the sentence, as prescribed in Article 35 of the Criminal Act, even though the Defendant committed each crime in the judgment of the court below in the first and second instance, which was committed by the Defendant during the period of repeated crime, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Nevertheless, the defendant's argument of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3...