If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant from around 2011 to 201 is a deadly or a man who has symptoms of a patrine, and lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

A. On December 13, 2012, around 20:21, the bus stops located in the city transportation Daegu in Busan metropolitan City, and in front of the bus stops in the city transportation Daegu in Busan metropolitan City, the indecent act was committed by force by forcing the victims E (n, 25 years of age) waiting for the bus to do so at the bus stops, and by inducing her knife to do so one time with knife at the later time.

B. At the same place as “A”, at around 20:22, around D’s 1st floor, and at the same time, the victim F’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Application of each police statement statute to E and F;

1. Article 298 of the Criminal Act and Article 298 of the same Act concerning the crime, selection of fines;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental disorders;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Where a conviction of the accused is finalized on the facts constituting a sexual crime subject to the registration of personal information in accordance with Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, the accused is a person subject to registration of personal information in accordance with Article 42(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and the accused is obligated to submit personal information to the chief of the competent police station

The defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion of defense counsel argues that since the defendant committed the crime of this case in the state of mental disorder due to the fact that the defendant was in the state of mental disorder, the defendant was not guilty due to lack of responsibility. Thus, it is recognized that the defendant was suffering from her own illness before the crime of this case, but it cannot be said that the defendant lost his ability to distinguish things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, the defense counsel's above assertion is without merit.