A. At the time of committing the instant crime with mental disorder, the person was in a state of mental disorder by drinking.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. acknowledged by the court below as having lawfully adopted and examined the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it was found that the Defendant had considerable drinking at the time of the instant crime, but was in a state that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

As such, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

In addition, Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Code does not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused his or her mental disorder.

As stated in the above, this provision includes not only the free act in the cause of intention but also the free act in the cause of negligence. Thus, even though it was possible to anticipate the occurrence of danger, it is also subject to the case where the occurrence of danger was caused by a child’s mental and physical disorder (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do99, Jul. 28, 1992). Therefore, even if the defendant had been in a state of mental and physical weakness by drinking alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case.

Even if assumed, according to the evidence adopted by the court below, the defendant has been showing symptoms of loss of memory in the short term before the crime of this case, and there has been frequent cases of indicating violent inclination during the loss of memory. According to this, the defendant, even before the crime of this case, is aware of the fact that drinking is highly likely to commit violent crimes, etc., or could have sufficiently predicted it.