A candidate for medical treatment and custody shall be punished by medical treatment and custody.

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental disorder having weak ability to discern things or make decisions, under the influence of alcohol.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, even if the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, the defendant cannot reduce his/her responsibility for the defendant for the following reasons.

In other words, as recognized by the Defendant in this case, the Defendant had been well aware that he had shown symptoms of alcohol dependence before committing the instant crime, and had been treated for a long time by repeating hospitalization and pains.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without properly treating the alcohol dependence, committed a crime under the influence of alcohol from around 2007 to around 2015, prior to the instant crime, and was subject to criminal punishment several times.

Therefore, the defendant was aware of the high possibility of preventing a crime in the event of alcohol, and he had been able to prevent the crime from getting out of the state of mental disorder due to drinking again.

However, the Defendant predicted the occurrence of such risk, while drinking a knife, carried a knife and took a convenience store, and told the Defendant to avoid committing the instant crime.

Therefore, it is reasonable to not reduce the responsibility of the accused for mental disorder according to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, at the time of committing the instant crime, he was in the state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol.