All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: “A mental or physical disability” and “an unreasonable sentencing sentence 1”) committed a crime under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime with the weak capacity to discern things or make decisions, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or failing to recognize the Defendant’s state of mental or physical disability.” 2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (a two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's claim of mental suffering, the main weight of the defendant was 2 Hobbebs, and the defendant was found to have met the defendant by dividing the 250ml 20ml 2, 250ml 2, 400ml 1, and 400ml 1, with G before the crime of this case (Evidence No. 191, 76m 76m 2). However, according to the circumstances indicated in the court below's reasoning, the circumstance leading up to the crime of this case, the defendant's act, and the method and contents of the crime, etc. are examined after comparing the records, that is, the defendant did not seem to have suffered from changing things or lacking decision-making ability due to drinking at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below

Meanwhile, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which was amended by Act No. 15982 on December 18, 2018, provides that "the act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, may be mitigated." Thus, even if the defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder after the enforcement of the amended Criminal Act, even if he/she committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder, it is merely a reason for voluntarily reducing the punishment, and thus, the lower court did not voluntarily reduce the punishment against the defendant.