All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months against the crime of larceny.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the larceny of mental illness, the Defendant had weak ability to distinguish objects and make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time.

B. Even if not, the sentencing of each court below (No. 1: a fine of KRW 3 million, imprisonment of KRW 2:8 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, the records of this case show that the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Busan District Court on August 29, 2014; the judgment became final and conclusive on September 6, 2014; on September 10, 2014, the execution of the above imprisonment with prison labor for six months was terminated; and the Defendant committed the instant fraud on September 19, 2014, where three years have not passed since the completion of the above execution; and on September 19, 2014, the Defendant committed the instant larceny before the said judgment became final and conclusive. Since the instant larceny was committed in a concurrent relationship between the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the sentence, taking into account equity and taking into account whether to reduce or exempt the sentence, and thereby, determined the punishment to constitute a repeated offense under Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

However, the second instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on concurrent crimes and repeated crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the court below erred in misunderstanding the defendant's punishment without emphasizing repeated crimes and misunderstanding the punishment for a repeated crime.

However, even if there are the above reasons for ex officio reversal in each judgment of the court, the defendant's argument of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. According to the records of this case as to the claim of mental retardation, it is recognized that the defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the larceny in this case.

However, the defendant's amount of drinking and the amount of usual drinking, as well as this.