A. The Defendant, who is aware of the fact, does not completely memory the situation at the time of the instant crime in a state where the memory and recognition function of dementia are significantly deteriorated due to dementia, and even if the Defendant committed the same act as stated in the facts charged, the purpose of retaliation is not to have been committed.

Nevertheless, the court below committed an error of mistake in finding a guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to dementia and drinking.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts 1) Unless there is a confession of the defendant, whether there was the purpose of retaliation against the defendant should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various objective circumstances, such as the defendant's personal relation with the victim, the possibility of expectation of the crime, and the conditions before and after the crime (hereinafter "providing the proviso to investigation, etc.") such as the provision of the proviso to investigation, etc., the contents and degree of disadvantage suffered by the defendant due to the defendant's response during the investigation or trial, the change in attitude during the investigation or trial, the provision of the proviso to investigation, etc., the circumstances leading up to the crime committed by the defendant and the victim at the time of the crime, the surrounding environment including the time and place of the crime, the method of the crime, the contents and form of the crime, the provision of the proviso to investigation, etc., and other various objective circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9030, Sept. 26, 2014).