The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to mental illness, such as bipolartic disorder.

B. The punishment of eight months of imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Defendant’s statement at the trial court at the trial court at the Defendant’s own court was found to have been sentenced to eight months of imprisonment on November 30, 2016 by the Busan District Court for obstruction of business and special intimidation, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 25, 2017. As such, the crime of obstruction of business, etc., of which judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of this case constitutes concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of this case is determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity and cases where the judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the lower judgment is no longer upheld.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's argument of mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, and is judged below.

B. According to the records of this case as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the defendant was in a state in which continuous mental and medical treatment is needed after receiving a diagnosis of stimulative disorder at K Hospital around October 8, 2005, and even considering such circumstances, considering the background of the crime of this case, the method and method thereof, the defendant's attitude and behavior before and after the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime of this case, it is not deemed that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each crime of this case, and therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's mental and physical disability is without merit, but the judgment of the court below has a ground for reversal ex officio as seen earlier. Thus, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.