폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The character, behavior and habits of the defendant, family relationship, growth environment, criminal records, medical records, mental illness, etc., the motive or circumstance of the crime, the behavior of the defendant shown before or after the crime, etc. in the investigation agency and court, the attitude of the defendant present in the criminal investigation agency and court, the contents of the statement and documents submitted, and all other circumstances shown in the records or the trial process are not the same as the normal person at the time of the crime;
Where circumstances have revealed that the defendant's ability to control an act has been lost or significantly deteriorated due to mental illness, etc., the court shall, ex officio, investigate and examine relevant data about whether the defendant's crime was committed in a state that the defendant has no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder.
2. The court below rejected the defendant's claim of mental disability on the ground that although it is recognized that the defendant was receiving medical treatment due to stimulative disorder, the defendant did not seem to have weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness at the time of each crime of this case in light of the records.
3. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.
First of all, the record reveals the following facts.
Since 1999, the Defendant suffered from the mental illness, which was recognized by the lower court, due to the stimulative disorder, and seems to have been suffering from the above mental disease even at the time of each of the instant crimes.
In particular, the Defendant was hospitalized in the Y Hospital by the father X of the Defendant, who received a report immediately after the Defendant committed the instant crime on May 15, 2012, and was called out by the police officer and the Defendant who received contact from the police officer, and issued the first instance court thereafter.