특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of committing a crime with mental disorder, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of mental defect and alcohol.
B. If the defendant committed the crime of this case in the state of mental disorder as above, it cannot be viewed as the realization of a theft habit, and thus, habituality cannot be recognized.
C. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, although the defendant was found to have been dyeed of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, he was aware of the fact that he was syeed of alcohol, depression, and shock disorder, in light of various circumstances such as the background, method, content, and the behavior of the defendant before and after committing the crime in this case, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.
It does not seem to be in a state or weak.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.
B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the habitual nature of a crime refers to the tendency of a criminal, which is not the nature that forms the essence of an act, but the nature that forms the character of an offender. As such, the existence of habituality shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the offender’s age, character, occupation, environment, transfer, motive, means, method and place of the crime, time interval with the previous crime, similarity with the contents of the crime. It cannot be readily concluded that the offender’s act of crime does not constitute habituality solely on the ground that the offender was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3820, 2007Do8, Feb. 12, 2009; 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009, etc.). (2) In this case, the court below’s duly adopted and investigated evidence can be identified.