2014 Highly seven medical treatment and custody

2014. Attachment orders (combined) 2014

C. Attorney C.

All of the claims for medical treatment and custody of this case and attachment order are dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

Defendant and Applicant for Medical Treatment and Custody and Applicant for Attachment Order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) are students aged 18 years of age with developmental disability who are in the second grade of Dschool, a special school. The Defendant, on December 3, 2014, discovered the victim G (1) who had several times prior to the third floor corridor located in Busan F General Social Welfare Center E-gu on December 16, 2014, followed the Defendant on the ground that the mother of the victim was at the end of the third floor corridor. The Defendant followed the Defendant on the ground of his own dangerous mind. The Defendant opened the above entrance that was not corrected by the victim around that time, and the mother of the victim called “the victim” to the effect that the victim would return the victim. However, the Defendant and the mother of the victim would not return the victim.

The Defendant, as seen above, she saw the victim to kill himself/herself on the third floor outdoor and emergency stairs rail of the above third floor, she was living together with the victim on the ground below 9.2m from the 3rd floor, and was suffering from the victim from the thromatic brain typosis, and on the same day, she caused the victim to die during the treatment at the Gancheon University Gan University Gancheon-ro 262, Busan. Accordingly, the Defendant murdered the victim in the above manner.

2. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

A. The main part of the facts charged in the instant case is based on the victim’s statement, both on the victim’s mother, and the interrogation conducted in the course of investigation into the Defendant is in fact the Defendant’s mother, and thus, the Defendant’s testimony is not guilty on the ground that the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a case where

B. Even if there is proof of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to serious self-harm disorder at the time, and thus, the Defendant is not guilty on the ground that it is not punishable under Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act.

3. Determination

A. Determination on whether a crime constitutes the elements of a crime and the proof of a crime

이 법원이 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ①0 피해자의 어머니인 H는 수사과정에서 일관되게 "피고인이 피해자의 손을 잡고 3층 옥외 비상계단 출입문을 열고 밖으로 데리고 나가는 것을 보고 곧바로 따라 나가 피고인의 한쪽 팔을 잡고 '하지마라'라고 하자, 피고인이 비상계단 난간에 서서 피해자를 들어 올려 지면으로 던져버렸다"라고 일관되게 진술한 점, ② 당시 피고인의 활동보조인인 J 역시 수사과정에서 "학부모 대기실 안에 있다가 H의 비명소리를 듣고 밖으로 나가보니 H가 피고인을 손으로 가리키며 크게 울고 있었고, 피고인이 3층 복도에 설치된 의자에 앉아 양손으로 귀를 막고 인상을 찡그리며 '잉, 잉'이라는 소리를 내고 있었다"라고 진술한 점, ③ F종합사회복지관 3층 복도에 설치된 CCTV에 피고인이 피해자의 손을 잡고 3층 옥외 비상계단 출입문 쪽으로 데리고 나가는 장면과 H가 곧바로 피고인을 뒤따라가는 장면이 촬영된 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 이 사건 공소사실 기재와 같이 피해자를 3층 옥외 비상계단 밖으로 집어던져 살해하였음을 충분히 인정할 수 있다.

B. Determination on the responsibility ability

1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, such as the Defendant’s partial statement in the first trial record, the Defendant’s partial statement in the video recording of the interrogation of the suspect, the Defendant’s statement to the Defendant in the prosecutor’s office, the official document requesting the submission of data, such as the prosecutor’s observation and consultation record, and the documents submitted by the prosecutor’s office, the copy of the medical record certificate to the Defendant in the preparation of the head of the medical record center at the high school uniform hospital, and the written response to the Ministry of Justice’s mental appraisal request with regard to the Medical Treatment and Custody Office, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder with considerable difficulty in the ability to discern things or make decisions, as

① After the birth, the Defendant was diagnosed as a self-harmacilizing at “K at the time of the age of three.” However, even if he was admitted to a general elementary school, he was found to have received a judgment of a third-class disability of the mental body because the mental disorder grade for the difficulty of development at the time was not separately provided. The Defendant was admitted to a special school for two years, and was admitted to a special school for six years, and was subject to the other party’s simple instruction. However, even though he did not have any visual dancing with the other party, the Defendant still did not understand the meaning of the word, or did not properly express his body condition, appraisal, etc.

On April 16, 2004, the Defendant was judged to have been 1st degree of developmental disability as ‘the disability of mental function and self-divating tendency’ at a high school’. Since then, the Defendant received three-year secondary education course at L Special School, and entered the higher education course at D Special School located in Busan around 2013, the Defendant still was able to continue school life with the help of the assistant students.

② From the time when the Defendant was her speech, the Defendant sent a sensitive reaction to sound, such as the sound shicking to sound, the sound shacking to sound, etc. In addition, at school, the Defendant, alone, expressed that he was able to hear music, and that she did not want to do so, even if she did not express her verbally, she did not express her words, and repeated the Defendant’s behavior of singing in two hands.

In addition, due to the characteristics of developmental disorder, the Defendant was unable to take care of others at all, and was able to do so, and there was almost little time to see the violent tendency toward ordinary people, and there were many cases where children living alone than the Defendant do not seem to have any response even when the Defendant was able to do so, and they were flicking. ③ Even at the time when the Defendant was investigated into the instant crime by the investigation agency, the Defendant did not understand at all the police or the prosecutor at all, and did not have any questions about the Defendant’s name and the school at which the Defendant was enrolled (limited to questions about the Defendant’s name and the school at which the Defendant was asked), and the statement related to the victim was completely “I am flick, and I am saw.” Accordingly, most of the interrogations of the Defendant by the police or the prosecutor were asked about the Defendant, who was present at the police or prosecutor’s seat, and the Defendant appeared to have been able to shotly or sing off the Defendant’s speech or sing.

④ From March 1, 2014, M with the first degree of a senior special teacher’s license (at the above D special school from around March 1, 2014, as a defendant’s teacher) stated to the effect that “At present, the defendant is unable to understand the situation of the victim’s death or the situation of his/her being investigated,” and that “after the occurrence of the instant case, the defendant was merely a response to the Defendant’s mother, who was the Defendant’s mother, to the effect that “at present, he/she was punished by A,” and that “after the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant seems to have been aware that he/she was under punishment.” The Defendant appears to have been aware that he/she was currently punished. The same is not that the Defendant was a victim with a clear recognition that he/she would be able to kill or die the victim.”

⑤ Comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s statement contents and attitude in the trial process, the Defendant appears to have never been aware of the situation in which he was under trial, and the Defendant’s mother, who was present in the trial without understanding of the presiding judge’s questions at all, did not properly answer to I and the Plaintiff’s mother who was present in the trial, and did not go away from the job while making a formal answer according to the contents of questions.

④ According to the mental appraisal document prepared by the Ministry of Justice, who was entrusted with the mental appraisal of the Defendant by this court from February 25, 2014 to March 24, 2014, which took charge of mental appraisal by the Ministry of Justice, the level of “the Defendant’s communication (0%) (91%-e2), standard score 14), social interaction (14%-e, standard score 91%-e, standard score 14), normal behavior (0%-e, 37%-e, standard score 9), and 116%-e, standard score was distributed lower, and the evaluated recognition ability (I Q59) was deviated from and peculiar to the 116th degree of self-defluence, and the social index (S Q37.5) lacks ability to adapt to society due to the lack of ability to recognize mental disorder, and lacks mental judgment ability of the Defendant’s mental disorder, such as mental disorder decision-making ability, mental impulse, mental disorder disorder, etc.

2) Therefore, the crime of this case is committed in the state of mental disorder, in which the defendant has no ability to discern things or make decisions, and is not punishable under Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act.

4. Conclusion

Thus, since the crime in the facts charged in this case constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant is not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in light of the defendant's situation, etc. as seen earlier, it constitutes a case where the defendant's consent to the public notice of acquittal cannot be obtained. Thus, the summary of the judgment of innocence in this case under the proviso of Article

Judgment on medical treatment and custody claims

1. Summary of grounds for the request for medical treatment and custody;

The defendant committed the crime of this case under the circumstance that the person with disabilities of class 1 with developmental disabilities is not capable of discerning things or making decisions, such as the summary of the facts charged in this case's "a summary of the facts charged in this case", and there is a need for medical treatment at medical treatment and custody facilities and the risk of recidivism

2. Determination

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s mother was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the Defendant’s mother was in contact with others, and the Defendant was in a mixed condition. Although there is only a person who undergoes drug treatment with others violent inclinations during a person with a developmental disability, the Defendant does not have to undergo drug treatment with others. ② The Defendant does not actually cause violence against the person prior to committing the instant crime, and rather, it seems that the Defendant did not seem to have been able to have been able to overcome the risk of recidivism at the facility for mental and physical treatment and custody, and there is no possibility that the Defendant would need to undergo drug treatment and custody more actively after being entrusted with mental diagnosis by this court, and thus, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s mental and physical treatment and custody as a person with a serious risk of rehabilitation from a person with a developmental disability than before committing the instant crime. ③ From February 25, 2014 to March 24, 2014.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for medical treatment and custody of this case is dismissed in accordance with the latter part of Article 12(1) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act.

Judgment on the request for attachment order

1. The abstract of grounds for requesting an attachment order;

As stated in the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant is likely to recommit the future murdering with a person with disabilities of class 1 with developmental disabilities.

2. Determination

As seen earlier, the judgment of innocence is rendered against the defendant as to the facts charged of this case, and the defendant's request for the attachment order of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 9 (4) 2 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.

Judges Lee Jae-in

Judges Dok-hee

Doisass, 10th Vant Action does not appear to have a normal development stage due to overall gender development disorder in accordance with the standard for diagnosis, and intelligence index is 70

under section 4(1)(2)(3)(3)(3)(1)(3)(1)(1)(2)(2)(1)(2)(1)(

set forth.

2) The distribution of samples means the amount of installments at the time of the subdivision into one hundred parts.