A’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendant and the applicant B are all dismissed.

A. In full view of the facts leading up to the instant crime, the prosecutor [misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the Defendant and the Defendant-Appellant for the Medical Care and Custody (hereinafter “Defendant-Appellant”)], the degree of testimony after the instant crime, etc., Defendant B was in a state of mental and physical loss at the time

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B not guilty on the ground that Defendant B was in a state of mental or physical loss at the time of committing the crime. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment of the lower court (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The mental and physical loss person under Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act refers to a person who lacks the ability to distinguish things from things, i.e., a person who lacks the ability to make a decision-making capacity or lacks the ability to control his/her act by determining whether he/she is in a state of lacking the ability to distinguish things from things reasonably, or who lacks the ability to make a decision-making capacity, i.e., a person with mental and physical weakness under Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act. The person with weak mental and physical disability

The above physical change ability and decision-making ability are related to the ability or intent ability, and they do not necessarily coincide with the perception ability or memory ability of fact. Thus, even if the defendant had a clear awareness of murdering the victim, and they are sufficiently memorying the background of the crime.

Even if the defendant did not have a physical and mental loss on the ground of such fact.

No basis may be used as a basis (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do1328, Aug. 14, 1990). Moreover, the existence and degree of mental disorder under Article 10 of the Criminal Act does not necessarily necessarily belong to the opinion of a professional appraiser as a legal judgment, and it is not necessarily subject to the type and degree of mental illness, motive, process, and means of the crime.