폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)등
Article 10-A of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance.
All parts of the crime except for the part of the crime.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder under the influence of mental disorder, and at the time, was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder.
B. The punishment (i.e., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and (ii) imprisonment with prison labor for the crime under Article 10-a (2) and imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes) of each court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, this Court tried to combine each appeal case against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 with each other, and Article 10-A of the judgment of the court below as stated in the judgment of the court below.
Since the remaining crimes except for crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, among the judgment of the court below, Article 10-A of the judgment of the court below of the second instance.
Except for the part of the crime, the remainder is no longer maintained.
B. On the basis of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of the mental disorder, the Defendant’s assertion of the above mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is to be examined.
According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, even though the defendant was found to have a drinking condition at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime
Although it seems that there was a weak or weak state, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant had a mental disorder due to mental disorder, etc.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
C. Article 10-A of the Judgment of the second instance.
The defendant's judgment on the argument of unfair sentencing regarding the crime above.