폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Even though the Defendant suffered from her face-to-face disease, it is difficult to view that there is a direct causal relationship between the unique symptoms of the above disease, such as her net and halluation, and the violent behaviors of the Defendant. In light of the fact that the Defendant planned C in retaliation appraisal about C and led to the instant crime, the lower court, despite its difficulty in deeming that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical disability, there is an error of law recognizing the
B. The lower court recognized the reduction of mental and physical disability against the Defendant, which affected the sentence of the lower court, and the lower court’s sentence (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances revealed by the record on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, namely, ① the Defendant suffered from efficiencies in 2009, resulting in difficulties in controlling behavior by engaging in aggressive behavior, etc., depending on the network; ② the Defendant suspended taking drugs for several months prior to the crime of this case; ② the Defendant’s symptoms are highly likely to worsen; ③ the Defendant continues to make a statement on his criminal conduct in the investigation after the arrest of the Defendant, while displaying the Defendant’s continuous bad faith with C, and making a request for restraint without reasonable grounds. In light of the fact that the Defendant at that time appears to have remarkably deteriorated the ability to recognize or judge things through a normal accident, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant caused the instant crime under a lack of ability to distinguish things and make decisions, such as continuing aggressive attack against others.
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
B. This case’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing