All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) has committed each of the crimes of this case under the condition of physical and mental loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol, and thus, the responsibility should be dismissed or mitigated.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background, content, means, method, and consequence of each of the instant crimes, the circumstance before and after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak at the time of each of the instant crimes as indicated in the judgment below.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the background, method, and frequency of each of the instant crimes, and the degree of assault and business interference, etc., the crime is not deemed to be committed.

In addition, even though the defendant was subject to criminal punishment several times for the same crime, the defendant did not have been subject to criminal punishment, and again committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime, which is likely to be subject to criticism, and the damage caused by each of the crimes of this case

On the other hand, however, the defendant's mistake is all taken place, and the damage caused by each of the crimes of this case is not very serious.

In addition, the defendant seems to have committed each of the crimes in this case by drinking.

Considering the circumstances unfavorable or favorable to the defendant as above, the circumstances after the crime, the age of the defendant, sexual conduct, environment, and all other conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant is too heavy or hot within the proper scope of sentencing discretion, and thus, it does not seem unfair. Thus, each argument by the defendant and the prosecutor on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion.