beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.08.17 2018노405

상해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had mental and physical loss or mental weakness at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case’s determination as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is not deemed that the Defendant’s ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime was lost or weak in view of the following: (a) the Defendant showed shock disorder and anti-social inclination at the time of receiving a psychological examination and interview on April 2017; (b) the fact that the Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime is recognized; and (c) the background, means and methods of committing the instant crime; (d) the Defendant’s attitude and words before and after committing the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after committing the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant did not appear to be in a state of having lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime; and therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion

However, in light of the criminal records of the defendant, etc., the defendant did not refrain from drinking despite being well aware that he/she is highly likely to engage in violent behavior when he/she drunk.

The judgment is determined, and this constitutes an exception to the restriction on the ability to assume responsibility under Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder argument is not acceptable). (b) The fact that the Defendant recognized a criminal act as to an unfair determination of sentencing and shows an attitude to reflect his mistake is favorable to the Defendant, but the crime of this case is committed on the ground that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and the injured party, who is the owner of the singing practice hall, refuses to give alcohol to the Defendant, and the victim’s knee part is knee.