특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
1. Grounds for appeal;
A. A. The defendant suffered from alcohol-related existence or urology, and due to alcohol-related existence, the defendant is not aware of whether he is in a state of low blood transfusion, and when he continues to be in a state of low blood, he loses human capacity. The crime of this case also includes the crime of this case where the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol-related existence and low blood transfusion.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, and the prosecutor additionally applied for an amendment to a bill of amendment to indictment to the effect that the Defendant, together with P, stolen 1 Libya owned by the victim Q, accompanied by scrap metal owned by the victim Q, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it changed the subject of the judgment by permitting it.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability still is subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined.
B. In the judgment of the court below, the defendant alleged as the ground for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with the defendant's argument and its decision under the title "as to the defendant's and his defense counsel's argument". In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment below is just and acceptable, and this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
this Court.