절도등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental fissionable diseases.
B. The punishment of the first instance of unfair sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. According to a copy of the medical records submitted by a defense counsel in an appellate trial as to the claim of mental retardation, the Defendant had been hospitalized for a considerable period of time three times due to a previous network type of mental fission, and the conditions of hospitalized treatment appear to be temporaryly improved after the discharge, and even after the discharge, the Defendant did not deny his/her own mental disease and did not appropriately recover from the treatment, and thus, can be seen as a tendency that the symptoms of a mental fission disease re-explo
In full view of the following facts: (a) at the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was living together in the studio; (b) the background and details of each of the instant crimes; (c) the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of the police investigation; and (d) the materials concerning the Defendant’s present state (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Ma1732, etc., Supreme Court Decision 2015DaMa1732, supra) submitted by the Defendant I to the appellate court; and (b) at the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of having the ability to discern things or make decisions, and (c) the Defendant’s mental illness affected each
Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability is justified.
On the other hand, in case where there is doubt about mental disorder, a state appointed defense counsel shall be appointed. However, unlike the appellate court, the first instance court did not submit objective data, such as medical records, to recognize the mental illness of the defendant, and the defendant was also unable to observe the status of the defendant directly due to his/her failure to appear, and it seems difficult for the first instance court to suspect the mental disorder of the defendant.