폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;
3. One set of excessive charges that have been seized.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was in a state of mental disorder due to the mental fission and exploitation at the time of committing the instant crime.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle and the defendant's trial testimony at the court below, the defendant was suffering from mental fission at the time of the crime of this case, but it is not deemed that the defendant had no ability to discern things or make decisions. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle is without merit.
B. The instant crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is acknowledged, even though the Defendant used the excessive amount of a deadly weapon to inflict injury on the victim G and H, damaged a vehicle owned by the victim I to have KRW 1,283,478, and the nature of the crime is significant in light of the circumstances of the crime, the method of the crime, etc., the Defendant did not agree with the victim G, and the Defendant has a history of punishment several times for the same kind of crime. However, the Defendant led to the confession and mistake of the instant crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime contingently in a state of mental and physical disability caused by mental disorder, the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder and treatment, and did not repeat the instant crime in good faith, and the Defendant agreed with the victim H and I in the trial, and all other circumstances constituting the conditions for the sentencing in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the allegation of unfair sentencing is justified.
3. As a result, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the defendant is reasonable, under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.