The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the crime of this case, although the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder, such as a sulfur disorder and depression disorder at the time of committing the crime of this case, and was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness due to drinking alcohol.

B. The sentence of punishment was sentenced to one year on April 20, 2016 by the Defendant on the grounds that: (a) the illegal Defendant recognized the error of sentencing; (b) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes by contingency under the influence of alcohol; (c) the physically handicapped person; and (d) the amount of damage is relatively minor; and (d) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for an unreorderd crime

7. 8. The above judgment becomes final and conclusive. In light of the fact that the crime of this case, as above, should be considered in relation to the concurrent crimes with the crime of false accusation, etc. for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the principle of equity with the case of punishment should be taken into account, it is unfair

2. Determination

A. In full view of the background, means and methods of each of the instant crimes, Defendant’s behavior before and after each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after each of the instant crimes, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it may be recognized that the Defendant had symptoms, such as depression and depression, etc., at the time of each of the instant crimes, but it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was unable or weak to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that did not apply Article 10 of the Criminal Act to the Defendant erred by violating the statutes on the grounds for statutory exemption from liability.

Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

B. We examine ex officio prior to determining the illegality of ex officio sentencing.

According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor on April 20, 2016 at the Suwon Friwon Friwon, etc., and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 8, 2016.