성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(13세미만미성년자강간)등
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 was suffering from a mental disorder while the Defendant was suffering from a traffic accident prior to the instant case, and was in a state of mental and physical disability by drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental and physical disability. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
3. Determination
A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and rejected the said assertion in detail under the title of “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”.
Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records, the above judgment is justified and acceptable.
(A) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, even though he/she was found to have been in a state of mental disability at the time of the instant crime, in addition to taking place due to drinking as above, in the trial, and that there is insufficient grounds or materials to acknowledge it. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant ought to determine whether the Defendant was in a mental disorder through the procedure
The mental disorder stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act refers to a person with mental disorder, other than a mental disorder such as mental disorder or abnormal mental state due to biological factors, which lacks or reduces the ability to discern things from mental disorder and the ability to control action accordingly. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder was a person with normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, it cannot be deemed a mental disorder unless he/she had normal ability to discern things or control action.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7900, Feb. 8, 2007). Moreover, in determining whether a defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime.