All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 has committed each of the instant crimes under the state of mental disability and mental disability.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) of the first instance judgment by the prosecutor (unfair imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the first and second court sentenced the defendant to six months of imprisonment, respectively, after completing a separate hearing against the defendant, the defendant and the prosecutor in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant in the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court of first instance in the judgment of the court of second instance decided to jointly examine the above two appeals cases. Each offense against the defendant shall be sentenced to a single sentence in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant shall be sentenced to a single sentence in accordance with Article

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability still is subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the claim of mental disability, it is deemed that the Defendant was suffering from mental illness, such as depression at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a drunken state at the time of committing the instant crime on February 6, 2014, but it does not seem that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions, in light of the mode and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the lower court did not decide on the allegation of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, on the grounds of ex officio reversal.