The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, according to the records, the Defendant was sentenced on June 13, 2013 to one year and six months for fraud, etc. in the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court, and the facts that the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 5, 2013, and the instant crime was committed before the above judgment becomes final and conclusive. As such, each of the crimes for which the judgment became final and the instant crime was committed are in the latter concurrent crimes under Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act, and the punishment is determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment in consideration of equity and the case where the judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the lower judgment cannot be maintained any more.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio destruction.

Even if the defendant's argument about mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, it is examined.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant was somewhat at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, in light of the overall circumstances, such as the Defendant’s speech and behavior, the specific details of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime in this case.

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

3. Therefore, the court below's decision is ex officio in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.