산림보호법위반
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months;
3. A candidate for medical treatment and custody;
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to non-faceted evidence, alcohol existence, etc.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the defendant is found to have presented his opinion that: (a) the intelligence index was 52 degree and falls under the category of "scam intellectual disability"; (b) the social age (SA) was 11 years of age and 54.19 years of age; and (c) the social index was 54.19; and (d) it is difficult to expect self-help activities required at the living age; (b) the ability to form appropriate personal relations; (c) the ability to make logical decision-making and judgment; and (d) the appraiser P and Q conducted by taking charge of the defendant's mental sentiment; and (c) "the defendant is deemed to have committed the crime of this case in a state of mental disorder with low mental delay level, mental and behavioral disorder caused by harmful use of intelligence and alcohol; and (e) impulse ability decrease."
In full view of the above Defendant’s mental retardation disorder, the motive and background leading up to the Defendant’s instant crime, and the Defendant’s act at the time of the instant crime, etc., it is deemed that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, such as intelligence at the time of the instant crime, mental and behavioral disorder due to the harmful use of alcohol, shock, etc.
Therefore, the punishment should be mitigated pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act for the defendant's crime of this case.
Nevertheless, the lower court is a mental patient.