폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등존속협박)등
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
1. On the grounds that there was an expression of intent not to punish a victim as to the continued assault among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the prosecution and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment with prison labor by recognizing the existence of threats to carry a deadly weapon and the injury to carry a deadly weapon. Since only the Defendant appealed on the guilty part and the rejection of prosecution without the prosecutor’s appeal is finalized, the scope of the judgment of the lower court is limited to the convicted part of the
2. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of various circumstances such as the behavior before and after each of the crimes in this case and the contents of each of the crimes in this case, the defendant's drinking at the time of each of the crimes in this case is acknowledged, but the defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime several times under the influence of alcohol, and the defendant has repeatedly followed his/her behavior on the following day, such as taking a bath to his/her family or taking a house at ordinary times when he/she was drunk. In addition, prior to each of the crimes in this case, each of the crimes in this case, the circumstances where the defendant was showing a strong reflect on his/her hospitalized family members for treatment of alcohol dependence after the defendant's alcohol dependence. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was under the influence of being aware that he/she would have abused and threatened his/her family members when he/she under the influence of alcohol.
Therefore, even if the defendant was in a state that he was unable to discern things or lacks the ability to make decisions due to alcohol at the time of the above crime, such as the defendant's assertion, the defendant predicted the occurrence of danger and caused the mental disorder of the defendant under Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act.