상해치사
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated at the first trial date that the Defendant was not at the time of the Defendant’s death of the victim who led Libya and died. However, this is a claim after the lapse of the period for appeal not timely, and thus, the Defendant is subject to the judgment of this court only in the sense of urging the exercise of authority.
A. At the time of preventing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a mental and physical state due to the mental retardation of the longitude.
B. The punishment of the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court ex officio determination as to whether the Defendant was guilty of the facts, based on the following: (a) comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s bodily injury caused to the victim’s face, neck, and chest, etc. by booming the victim, thereby damaging the victim’s head, chest, and boom and boom; and (b) the victim caused the victim’s injury resulting from the Defendant’s above assault and thereby resulting in death.
The decision was determined.
In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s mental disorder, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to delay in the spirit of longitude at the time of committing the instant crime.
Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental disorder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
① According to the notice of the result of the mental appraisal of the Defendant, the Defendant was conducted by the Medical Care and Custody Center at around April 2016 by the Ministry of Justice.