Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 14(2) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act, the part of the medical treatment and custody claim shall be excluded within the scope of the judgment of this court.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to mental division at the time of committing the instant crime, etc., the lower court recognized only the state of mental disorder. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant’s state of mental disorder.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of order to attend a course) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A mental or physical disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Code on the part of the assertion of mental or physical disorder requires that mental or physical disorder, other than mental disorder such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, due to a biological factor, is lacking or reduced in the ability to distinguish things from one another due to mental or physical disorder. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with normal mental disorder, if he or she had the ability to discern things from one another at the time of committing the crime, or control of action accordingly, he or she cannot be deemed a mental or physical disorder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7900, Feb. 8, 2007). Determination of whether or not a person has mental or physical disorder is not bound by the opinion of a specialized appraiser as a legal judgment, but can be independently determined by the court by taking into account various circumstances, such as the type and degree of mental disorder, motive, circumstance, means and mode of the crime, the behavior

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on November 29, 2007