Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 80,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

The “C’s written statement” was prepared as part of the investigation process at the police’s request while C was summoned by the police, and constitutes “written statement prepared by a person other than the defendant in the course of investigation” under Article 312(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act. As long as there is no record of the investigation process under Article 244-4(3) and (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, its admissibility cannot be acknowledged as it cannot be said that it was prepared in accordance with the due process and method

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do3790 Decided April 23, 2015). Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

However, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to a trial by this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant’s claim of mental disability, it is recognized that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, but in light of the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the background leading to the crime, details of the crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, it is not recognized that the Defendant had the ability to discern things and make decisions at the time of the crime, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

3. Although the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the argument of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal.