업무방해등
All the judgment below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months and by a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On January 20, 2015 and January 21, 2015, the lower court did not recognize that the Defendant committed the instant crime in the state of a quasi-incompetent with no mental health disorder and without a mental health disorder in the event of larceny and night-use larceny. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the relevant facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine of a quasi-incompetent, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Each sentence (the first instance court: imprisonment of August, fine of 60,000 won, the suspended sentence of two years, community service, 80 hours, and the second instance court: imprisonment of six months) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
This Court tried to combine the appeal cases against the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, and each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below in the second and second instances in the relationship of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the defendant should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard
Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion of mental suffering still is subject to the judgment of the court of this case. Accordingly, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the defendant was hospitalized and provided with outpatient drugs, such as hystrophism due to uneasiness, surface disorder, and anti-competitive disorder. However, in light of various circumstances such as the circumstance leading to the crime of this case, the method and method of the crime, the defendant's act before and after the crime of this case, it is not deemed that the defendant had weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to the above symptoms or hystrophism at the time of each crime of this case.
Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.
3. Conclusion.