All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (i) was physically and mentally weak at the time of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant was suffering from the pain, depression, alcohol, etc. at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to having drinking alcohol.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant was determined at a mental department five times from November 25, 2016 to December 26, 2017, and the Defendant was diagnosed by a remaining mental disorder, etc. on or around February 1, 2017, and the Defendant was found to have drinking at the time of the instant crime, but the Defendant was aware of the fact at the time of the instant crime. In light of the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s crime, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have weak the ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to tidal illness or drinking at the time of the instant crime, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. We examine both the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion regarding unfair sentencing.

The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment in consideration of the following circumstances confirmed through the overall purport of records and pleadings.

The favorable normal circumstances: ① a mistake is divided; ② the circumstances unfavorable to the confession of each of the crimes of this case: ① the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case even though he was punished for a concurrent crime, such as driving of the same kind of drinking, driving without obtaining a license, etc.; ② the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the repeated crime period; ③ the Defendant did not agree with the victim; ③ did not take any measures to recover the damage; ④ the Defendant’s failure to take any measures to stop driving under the influence of drinking, ④ damaged the neighboring glass window under each item on the ground that the Defendant was regulating the driving of drinking, and damaged the things of the police station.