The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of legal principles: Although the Defendant could not suspend the execution of a sentence as a disqualified person for probation, the lower court suspended the execution of a sentence when it sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment, there is an error in misunderstanding of legal principles as to the requirements for the suspension of execution. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s sentence (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and probation) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) Mental and physical disability: The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and thus, was in a state of mental disability: 2) unreasonable sentencing: The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the records of the instant case’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment on June 29, 2016 by committing a violation of the Animal Protection Act in the Macheon Branch Branch of the Gwangju District Court, etc. on May 19, 2018 and completed the execution of the said sentence in the Macheon Prison on May 19, 2018, and that the Defendant committed a crime on October 26, 2018, which was within three years from

Therefore, in the event that the court below sentenced the above crime which was found guilty, the execution of the sentence cannot be suspended, but the court below suspended the execution of the sentence while sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the above crime. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for disqualification from the suspension of execution, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of various circumstances, such as the motive and background of the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant did not have the weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, etc. at the time of the instant crime, and therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mental or physical disability is without merit.

3. Conclusion, prosecutor.