특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
The defendant of mental disorder was unable to discern things or make decisions due to the injury or illness at the time of the crime of this case.
The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
The above-mentioned sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
Judgment
In the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) at the trial of the court, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment containing the same facts as the facts constituting the crime under the relation between the instant facts charged and the blanket crime, and this court permitted this, thereby changing the subject of the trial. Therefore, the judgment of the court
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of defectiveness is still subject to the judgment of this court.
The defendant and defense counsel in the judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the reasons for appeal in this part. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below rejected the above assertion on the following grounds: although it is recognized that the defendant had been in a state of mental disability due to the fact that the defendant had been in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime in this case, considering the circumstances leading to the crime, the means and methods of the crime, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime
In addition to the above circumstances, in full view of the following facts and the circumstances known from the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.
Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disorder is without merit.
The Defendant is diagnosed as “mental division disease” around January 5, 2005.