Water fire prevention, special injury, damage to property, assault, special assault

2) 2019 Gohap155(Joint) Judgment

Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for life. Each seized knife (No. 1), knife (No. 2), knife (No. 3), knife (No. 15) shall be confiscated.

As to this, only the Defendant appealed, and the Prosecutor did not appeal. In such a case, according to the principle of no appeal ratio, the part of acquittal in the reasoning is also subject to the appellate trial along with the part of conviction. However, the part of innocence in the reasoning is already separated from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, this part cannot be judged again (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010).

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below shall be followed with respect to the portion not guilty, and this court shall not make a separate judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) was in a state of mental disability due to mental illness, such as her early illness, etc., at the time of each of the instant crimes (hereinafter each of the instant crimes, committed on April 17, 2019).

B. Improper assertion of sentencing

The punishment (the death penalty, confiscation) sentenced to the defendant in this case by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. Determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness

A. Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

1) The Defendant appears to have been living in the city of 00 to 20 years, with 1st century and 2nd century. The Defendant appeared to have been suffering from 1st century and 1st century. The Defendant appeared to have been suffering from 1st century and 2nd century. The Defendant appeared to have been aware of the fact that he had been suffering from 1st century as well as 1st century and 2nd century. The Defendant appeared to have been aware of the fact that he had been suffering from 1st century. The Defendant was unable to enter the 2nd century, but the Defendant was not aware of the fact that he had been suffering from 1st century as well as 1st century. The Defendant was not aware of the fact that he had been suffering from 1st century and 2nd century. The Defendant did not have been aware of the fact that he had been suffering from 1st century and that he had been aware of the fact that he had been suffering from an industrial accident at the time of 1st century. The Defendant did not have been aware of the fact that he had been working.

B) On August 31, 2010, Jinju branch of the Changwon District Court recognized the Defendant’s mental health and injury, and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment, three years of grace period, three years of probation, and three years of probation due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.). 3) Defendant was put on probation during the period of probation due to the instant case. The protection observation office recommended the Defendant to take compulsory hospitalization measures around December 15, 2010. The Defendant was her mother and her mother were able to live together with the Defendant at the house where he was living together, and the Defendant was her mother and her head at the investigative agency for 10 years of age and 10 years of age and 20 years of age, and the Defendant was hospitalized with the Defendant on January 1, 201 at the same time after being hospitalized with the Defendant on 14 years of age and 15 years of age and 20 years of age and 10 years of age.

C) On October 10, 201, the Defendant: (a) obtained a victim’s license to engage in 10 ambling and 2; (b) obtained 10 ambling and 10 ambling and 200 ambling and 1500 ambling; (c) received 7 ambling and 100 ambling and 1500 ambling and 7 ambling and 7 ambling and receiving 0 ambling and 7 ambling and 9 ambling and 7 ambling and working at 0 ambling and 9 ambling, the Defendant’s ambling and 19 ambling and 7 ambling and ambling ambling and 7 ambling the Defendant’s ambling and ambling the Defendant’s life at 00 ambling and 75 ambling.

F) On March 12, 2019, the Defendant made a large number of statements related to AAF 1, 19:35, and the Defendant continued to use the same victim's house inciting the victim's house, bullying 1, and spread the body of the Defendant's house, mixing it with the head of AA head, and corridor hallway 153 (the crime of March 12, 2019). According to the 112-report data, the Defendant’s office did not put the victim's strong mind when ○○○○ (the evidence records 2,01), and the Defendant’s office did not put the victim's house at a disadvantage (the crime of this case) and did not put the victim's house at a disadvantage. According to the 19-year office, the Defendant continued to use the same motive and method as the Defendant's office to receive civil petitions on April 2, 2019.

B) Since then, in an investigative agency, interview at the time of a mental appraisal, court, etc., the Defendant made repeatedly statement to the effect that “from around 10 years ago, the Defendant was a group that caused damage to the Defendant, etc. for the purpose of bullyinging the Defendant, etc., the Defendant took advantage of a frighten distance, such as sexual assault, murder, rape, etc., and the Defendant was related to the fright force of the State, and the Defendant was able to have people who were disadvantaged due to the serious corruption and corruption at the time of the Jinju, and all government offices such as the police station. After the Defendant moved into the Y apartment, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “The residents frightly fright the Defendant and frightly fright the Defendant with the group of the above criminals and are harming the Defendant and destroying the mental health.”

C) In addition, the Defendant made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the point of view that he had talked about the fast distance that other people are disadvantageous to the Defendant, instead of being aware of it. In the Defendant’s newspaper, the Defendant made a statement from the investigation agency to the point of reaching this court. In addition, the Defendant stated in the Defendant’s newspaper that, if he was in an apartment complex, the Defendant would talk about the elevator or the route of the elevator in the apartment complex, and that he would talk about it. 5) Furthermore, the Defendant made a statement that the residents installed a mera in order to monitor the Defendant, and the Defendant made a statement that, if he was influencated, he would have been able to conduct an appraisal adjustment. Moreover, as seen in the above Section 4, the Defendant made a statement that it was difficult for the victim to have been able to have been able to influcated because of deculous shocking, such as the residents of No. A, etc., and so on.

라 ) 피고인은 경찰 조사(증거기록 726면) 및 당심 피고인신문 당시 "화가 너무 많이 날 때는 '확 진짜 불 을 질러버릴까'라는 생각도 했다."는 취지로 진술하였고, 경찰 조사 에서는 " 언젠가 이런 일 이 생기지 않을까 막연하게 생각한 적은 있다."는 취지로 진술 하기도 했다(증거기록 1,232면).마 ) 당심피고인신문에서 피고인은 "2016. 말경 □□□□아파트 AB동 AC 호로 전입 한 직후 부터주변에서 단지 내에 다른 이들을 헐뜯으며 싸움을 붙여대는 사람들이 있다는 이야기들을 자기에게 하여 왔다."는 취지로 진술하였다. "□□□□ 단지 곳곳 에 패거리 를 지어 사기행각을 벌이고, 아동학대·강간 등 의 중범 죄 를 일삼고, 남의 험담 을 퍼 뜨리고 , 피고인에게 불이익을 주는 등, 각종 문제를 일삼는 사람들이 있다."는 내용 이었다. 피고인은 특히 "AB동 AA호 )의 경우 범죄자들이 낮밤을 가리지 않고 들락날락 거리고 , 피고인에게 인상을 쓰고 시비를 걸어오고, 벌레와 벌거지들을 피고인의 집을 향해 뿌리고, 아파트를 불법개조하여 몰래카메라를 설치하고는 피고인을 감시하고 있다. " 는 취지 로 진술했다. 피고인은 수사기관에서 "AD호 는 AA호 와 한 패거리 인범죄자 집단 이고 , AE호 남자는 형 안 ○○의 친구로 자기에게 잘해주는 척 을 하면서 뒤에서 욕 하고 벌레 를뿌려대는 패거리다."라는 취지로 진술하였다(증거기록 1,420면), 피고인 은 또한 " AF 호주민은 설날 때 음식을 가져다주었는데, 음식에 병균을 타 쉰 냄새가 났고 그것을 먹는 바람에 토하게 되었다."는 취지로 진술했고(증거기록 826면), 이 외에도 다수 의 주민들이 패거리를 이루어여러 불이익을 가 한다고 수차례 진술하였다. 6 ) 범행 경위가 ) 피고인 이 이 사건 범행에 사용한 도구 는 횟칼(전체길이34cm, 칼날길이 21cm ) 1 자루 , 장어 칼(전체길이 24㎝, 칼날길이 11cm) 1자루, 그리고 건물을 방화하는데 사용한 휘발유 등이다. 피고인은 칼 2점 을 약 한 달 전 구매한 것으로 보이는데, 피고인 은 수사 기관 에서는 "항상 옆에서 불이익을 주고해서 화가 나서 샀다. 항상 나의 감정 을 억압 해서 샀다."거나 "점점 불이익을 주는 정도가 심해져서 나를 보호하기 위해 샀다. " 는 취지 로 진술하였고(증거기록 728면, 1865면), 당심 피고인신문 당시에는 "낚시 도구 로 쓸 겸 보호 본능에 의해 필요하여 사두었다."는 취지로 진술하였다. 휘발유는 범행 이 있던 날인 2019.4. 17. 00:51경 집에서 3km 정도 떨어진 □□셀프주유소로 가구입 하고 기름 통 에담아 돌아왔는데, 당심 피고인신문 당시 피고인은 "평소에 이용하던 주유소 중 그 시간에도 열 것으로 생각했던 곳에 간 것 뿐이다."라는 취지로 진술하였다.나 ) 또한피고인은 당심 피고인신문에서 이 사건 살인 등 범행에 나아간 직접 적인 원인 에 대해"확 불 을 질러버릴까 하는 생각도 솔직히 있었지만, 일단은 오토바이 등 필요한 용도에 쓰기 위해 그냥 사두었다. 그리고 과일 소주 1병 을 마시고 잠이 들었는데 , 또 AA호 에서 뿌리는 벌레와 벌거지 등 때문에 잠에서 깨야 했고 화가 끓어 올랐고 마침 휘발유를 사둔 게 생각났다. 불 을 지르면서도 사람들을 죽이려고까지 생각 했던 것은 아니다. 당시 감정상태가 잘 기억나지 않는다."는 취지로 진술하였고, 이러한 피고인 의 진술은 수사기관에서부터 원심과 당심에 이르기까지 대체로 일관되고 있다.

다 ) 피고인은 피고인의 집 에 불 을 지른 후 곧바로 2 층 비상계단으로 이동 했다. 그리고 는 판시 범죄사실과 같이 AA호, AD호, AE호 피해자들을 비롯하여 대부분 자신 이 불이익 을 주는 패거리라고 진술한 이들에게 살인 또는 살인미수 의 범행을 가하였다.라 ) 피고인은 범행 상황에 대한 질문에 대하여, "누구에게 칼 을 휘둘렀는지 자세히 는 모르겠 는데, 평소 알고 지내던 사람들이 있었다."(증거기록 732면), "찌른 사람 이 남자 인지 여자인지, 누구인지 모르겠다. 그냥 맞닥뜨리는 대로 했다. 화가 계속 치밀어 올랐다. " ( 증거기록 1076면),"AA호 에 거주하는 여성 2명 을 만난 기억이 난다. 계단 을 오르락 내리락하면서 얄궂게 한 패거리로 불이익을 줬던 사람들을 만났다. 누구를 어떤 순서 대로 만났는지는 기억나지 않는다. AD호 여성 2명은 잘 기억나지 않는다. " ( 증거 기록 2340 면), "범행 중 투항할 무렵부터 이성이 돌아왔다. 화가 났을 때는 물불 을 가리지 않고 찔렀고, 화가 좀 가라앉았을 때는 담배를 한 대 피우고 칼 을 뽑고 자살 을 하려고 도 했다."(당심 피고인신문)는 취지로 진술하였다. 7 ) 범행 후 정황가 ) 피인은 체포당시 경찰이 공포탄을 쏘자 "공포탄인 거 다 안다."고 하기도 했고 , 이후 실탄을 쏘자 잠시 후 칼 을 버리고 투항하였다. 피고인을 체포한 경찰은 " 피고인 은 체포 되고 범행동기를 묻자 정확하게 얘기하지는 않고 국정농단이 어쩌고 저쩌고 하는 횡설수설을 했다."는 취지로 진술했고(증거기록 256면), 다른 경찰 또한 1 " 피고인 을 순찰차 에태운 후 범행동기를 묻자 '□□□□에 다녔는데 임금도 못받고 임 금 체불 이 심하다 ' 고했고, 파출소에 도착한 뒤 다시 묻자 '국정농단 사태가 심각한데 너희들 은 무엇 을 했냐'고 했다."는 취지로 진술하였다(증거기록 1020면).나 ) 이후피고인은 수사기관 및 법정에서 범죄사실을 모두 인정하고 심신미 약 으로 인한 감경 을주장하는 한편, 자신에게 조현병적 증세가 있음은 인정하지 않고 있다. 이에 따라 약복용 등 치료에 대한 의지 또한 없다. 피해자들 에 대한 생각을 물을 때는 " 아직 까지는 잘 모르겠다. 나도 억울한 마음에 하소연을 하고 싶어서 그렇게 한 것이다. " ( 증거 기록 733면), "잘못한 건 인정하고 받아들이기 싫어도 받아들여야 되는 것은 안다. " ( 원심피고인신문)라는 취지로 진술하기도 했고, 당심 피고인신문에서는 " 다시 돌아 가면 안할것이다. 그런데 그때 가봐야 안다고 생각한다. 내 딴에는 노력 을 했지만 불이익 이 뒤따르고 있는 상황이었다."라는 취지로 진술하는 등 자신의 행위를 진지 하게 반성 하는 모습은 보이지 않았다. 8 ) 임상 심리 평가와 정신감정 결과 등가 ) 대검찰청 과학수사부 법과학분석과 의 임상심리평가결과 ( 1 ) 대검찰청 심리분석관들은 2019.4.19.~30.창원지방검찰청 진주지청에서 임상 심리 평가 를하였다. 의뢰사항은 주민들에 대한 무차별적 공격의 이유, 정신과적 병력 및 의무 기록에 대한 종합적인 판단, 피고인의 지능, 계획적 목표지향적 사고능력 , 사고 장애 여부 ,정신증상의 수준, 재범 위험성 및 치료필요성 등 객관적인임상평가를 통한 심신 상태판단이었다. ( 2 ) 위심리분석관들이 2019.5.3. 작성한 임상심리평가서의 주요 내용은 다음 과 같다.

D. The mental condition inspection : The word f.o.b., at a rapid speed on one’s own network, was f.o.b., without the inspector’s involvement, which is a form in which the chemical is not interrupted. . . . The f.m., f. light at the time of entry into the entrance room at the end of the terminal, which was f.m., which was a last f.m., and the f. and the f.s., which was frequently shown on the other hand, was f.m., which was f., and was f.i.e., an inappropriate f., (blunted f.) and was f., which was f.m., which was f., which was f., and was f.m., which was f., and which was f., was f.d., the basic communication of intentions and the content of the accident, which was able to respond to the logic of the accident.

• In reality, food, clothing and past history have been well-known and preserved even in South: The current state of appraisal shows very difficult weather at the time of admission to the network, shocked. • The accident process and content: the company operating the factory in the past, Jinju public official, especially the residents in apartment complex living in the apartment complex who lack of suspicion about the fraud, violence, child abuse, etc., and the public prosecutor's opinion and the public prosecutor's office's opinion and the public prosecutor's office's opinion are not relevant to the accident. - The public prosecutor's office's opinion and the public prosecutor's office's office's opinion are not relevant to the accident in question. - The public prosecutor's office's opinion and the public prosecutor's office's opinion are not relevant to the accident in question.

An early illness is not a single disease, but a disease group caused by various causes. An early illness is not only two or more of five severe language, i.e., converging, converging, serious pain, or tension, voice symptoms, etc., and each of the above symptoms exists for a meaningful period of one month (or, in the case of treatment or success, the treatment; hereinafter the same shall apply) and at least one of the above symptoms falls under “the net, converging, and the average method of treatment,” and at least one of the above symptoms falls under “the average method of treatment,” and ii) for a considerable period of time after disability, the average level of treatment, such as one day, personal relationship, self-care, or the level of function of the patient at the same time, and the average level of diagnosis of the patient can not be evaluated as at least six months during which the disease can be verified regularly and continuously.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act provides that "no act of a person who has no capacity to discern things or has no capacity to make a decision due to mental disorder shall be punished." Article 10(2) provides that "the act of a person who lacks capacity to commit a crime may be mitigated due to mental disorder", "the mental disorder stipulated in this provision is biological factors, such as mental disorder or abnormal mental condition, and such mental disorder requires identification or reduction of capacity to distinguish things, and thus, even if such mental disorder was committed, it cannot be viewed that the person has capacity to control acts or actions by normal person at the time of the crime, and that the person has no capacity to control mental disorder at the time of the crime." Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of a person who has no capacity to distinguish things due to mental disorder," and that "the act of a person who has no capacity to control mental disorder at the time of the crime is likely to suffer from mental disorder at the same level as that of an expert witness at the time of the crime."

(3) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Defendant 2 had no record of the crime of this case on the following grounds: Defendant 2 had no record of the crime of this case, and Defendant 2 had no record of the crime of this case on the following grounds: Defendant 2 had no record of the crime of this case, and Defendant 2 had no record of the crime of this case on the premise that she had no record of the crime of this case, including 00,00 residents living in the apartment complex; Defendant 2 had no record of the crime of this case; Defendant 3 had no record of the crime of this case, such as murder, violence, rape, and child abuse; Defendant 4 had no record of the crime of this case on the premise that she had no record of the crime of this case on the ground that she had no record of the crime of this case; Defendant 2 had no record of the crime of this case on the ground that she had no record of the crime of this case and had no record of the criminal records of this case before her.

그러나 치료 감호소 의료부장인 원심 증인 장 ○○이 "감정에 필요한 수사기록 내용은 확인 하였고 , 치료감호소에서는 여러 명의 의사가 감정서를 검토하여 전문의마다 다른 의견 을 내지 않도록 하고 있고, 이 사건과 같이 주목을 받는 사건의 경우에는 훨씬 많이 고심 하고 더 많이 환자를 면담하며컨설턴트를 이루어 다 같이 살핀다."는 취지.로 증언 한 점 에 비추어 보면, 검사가 주장한 사정만으로는 치료감호소의 감정이 신빙성 이 낮다고 볼 수없다. 또한 앞서 본 임상심리평가와 정신감정 결과의 요지는 '피고인 에게 인지 능력 , 기억력, 의사표현능력 등 의 문제는 없으나, 망상 등에 지배되어판단력 , 사고 능력 이 손상되어 있고, 피고인의 망상 이 범행동기가 되었다'는 내용으로 공통되고 있고 , 치료 감호소가 심신미약 의견을 제출한 점, 원심 증인 장○○은 '2010년 감정과 달리 지남력 이보존되어 있다고 하여 반드시 상태가 좋아졌다는 것은 아니다'라는 취지 로 진술 한 점, 임상심리평가에 기재된 부분은 피고인의 인지능력 등에는 문제가 없어 ' 와해 형 조현병'은 아니라는 취지에 불과한 것으로 보이고 전체적인 내용은 치료 감호소 의 정신 감정결과와 유사한 것으로보이는 점 등 을 종합하면, 앞서 본 임상 심리 평가 와 정신 감정결과는 피고인 이 이 사건 각 범행 당시 심신미약 상태에 있었음 을 뒷받침 하는 신빙성있는 자료로 판단된다. ( 6 ) 검사는 피고인 이 사전에 범행대상을 선정한 점, 사전 에 범행방법을 계획 하고 범행 도구 를준비한 점, 범행실행을 결의하고 범행기회를 포착하는 행태를 보인 점 , 범행 대상 을 끈질기게 추격하고 정밀하게 타격한 점, 범행당시에도 대상을 구별한 점 등에 비추어철저히 계획적인 범행이었으므로 피고인이 범행 당시 심신미약 상태가 아니라고 주장한다. 앞서 본 인정사실을 토대로 살피건대, 피고인이 막연하게나마 사전 에 방화 나 살인등 의 범행을 준비하고 계획하고 있었던 점, 방화 후 사람들이 대피하는 통로 인 계단 으로 가 대기한 점, 자신이 가해자로 생각하던 사람들을 위주로 공격한 점 , 자신 이 가해자 로 인식하는 피해자를 쫓아가 공격하는 경우도 있었던 반면 가해자 로 인식 하지 않는 피해자는 그대로 보내주기도 한 점 등 의 사정을 인정할 수 있기는 하나 , ① 범행 도구인 칼 2점은 피고인이 자신을 방어하기 위해 가지고있었을 가능성 을 배제 할 수 없고, 휘발유 또한 처음부터 방화를 하기 위해사온 것이 아니라 피고인 이 진술 한 바와 같이당시 잠에서 깨어 화가 치밀어 오르자 마침 사둔 휘발유가 생각나 범행 을 결의 했을 가능성을 배제할 수 없는 점, ② 앞서 제3의 가. 6)항에서 본 바와 같이 피고인 은 자신을 화나게 한 사람들을 맞닥뜨리자 화가 치밀어 공격한 기억은 있으나 구체적인 정황을 기억하지는 못하고 있는 것으로 보이기도 하는 점, ③ 피고인의 피해 망상 , 관계 망상 등 이 이 사건 범행의 동기가 된 이상 피고인이 그 와 같은 범행을 준비 하여 계획 하고 이에 따라 범행을 실행하였다 하더라도피고인을 심신미약 상태로 판단 하는 데 방해가 된다고 볼 수 는 없는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 검사의 위 주장 은 받아들이 기 어렵다. ( 7 ) 검사는 또한 피고인의 범행 전후 행동, 즉 소셜댄스를 수강하거나 경류장 에서 경륜 도박을 한 점, 범행 당시 추적을 회피하기 위하여 집에서 3km나 떨어진 셀프 주유소 를 이용한 점 등 을 보면 피고인의 인지능력과 판단력이 일반인과 동일하였다는 취지 로 주장한다. 그러나 ① 치료감호소 의료부장인 원심 증인 장00은 "조현 병 환자 라고 해서 반드시 인지기능이 손상되는 것은 아니어서 무엇을 배우거나 할 수 없는 것이 아니고 , 판단력에 손상이 있는 것이지 완전히 결여된 것은 아니다."라고 하면서 , " 피해 망상 을 가지고 어떤 행동을 하는 것과 인지능력을 가지고 어떤 행동을 하는 것은 별개 의 문제이다. 이는 조현병 환자도 경륜도박, 소셜댄스 수업, 미용강좌 수강 을 할 수 있다는정신과 전문의 강○○의 회신과 같은 취지이다"는 취지로 증언 한 점 ( 공판 기록 308 면 ) ,② 피고인은 당시자신이 자주 이용하던 주유소 중에서 열었을 것이라고 생각한 주유소에 갔을 뿐이라고 진술하고 있고, 실제로 당시 새벽1시가 넘은 시각 이었으며 , 피고인은 셀프주유소를 이용하다가 기계가 잘 작동 하지 않자 직원의 도움 을 요청 하였던 것(증거기록 776면) 등에 비추어 주유소에 갈 때부터 추적을 회피 하기 좋다는 생각 까지했다고 보기 어려운 점 등 을 종합하면, 검사의 위 주장도 받아 들일 수 없다. ( 8 ) 마지막으로 검사는 피고인 이 아무런 반성을 하지 않고 있는 점도 심신 미약 이 아니라는논거로 주장하나, 5명 을 살해하고 모두 22명의 피해자를 만들어 낸 이 참혹한 범죄 를 저지르고도 반성은커녕 그 범행의 심각성을 제대로 인식하지도 못하고 자신 의 억울함 만을 호소하는 피고인의 태도야말로 피고인의 정신상태가 일반인과 동일 하다고 는 말할수 없는 핵심적인 사정으로 보이고, "망상증 환자들은 망상의 세계에만 집중 하고 있고 ,현실 상황에 별 관심도 없고 알고 싶어 하지도 않는다. 주로 피해망상 속 에서 가해자와 본인의 관계에서 어떤 위협이 미래에 닥칠 것인지 거기에 모든 관심 이 집중 되어 있다. 피고인도 피해망상에서 사고가 멈춰 있다."는 취지 로 한 원심 증인 장 ○○ 의 증언(공판기록 311면)또한 그러한 취지로 이해된다.나 ) 소결론

Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which was amended by Act No. 2015982 on December 18, 2018, provides that "the act of a person who lacks the ability to distinguish a dead person from mental or physical disability, or who lacks the ability to make a decision, may be mitigated from punishment"; thus, even if the above provision has been amended, it is reasonable to apply the provision on statutory mitigation pursuant to mental or physical weakness under the Criminal Act to the defendant, insofar as the defendant is deemed to have committed each of the crimes of this case in the state of mental or physical weakness, as seen earlier, even if the above provision was amended, as seen in the above, if the defendant was judged to have committed each of the crimes of this case in the state of mental or physical weakness. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not recognize that the defendant was in a state of mental or physical disability at the time of the crime of this case, and rendered a sentence without applying Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which is a statutory mitigation provision against the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is reasonable. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the argument of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is rendered following a pleading.

(Da) The criminal facts and the summary of the evidence of the facts of the crime and the evidence admitted by this court are referred to in Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, except for the addition of "the defendant committed each of the following crimes in a state where he has already weak the ability or ability to make a decision on the right and wrong due to the injury or illness," and the addition of "the defendant committed each of the following crimes in a state where he had the ability to discern things due to the injury or the ability to make a decision due to the injury or illness," thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure

1. Relevant provisions concerning criminal facts;

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (Murder), Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of attempted murder), the main text of Article 164(2) and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of causing bodily harm to the Present main building), Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of causing bodily harm), Article 36 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing bodily harm), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing bodily harm), Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of causing bodily harm), Articles 261 and 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of special assault)

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed for the crime of causing bodily injury to a building at each port, the crime of causing bodily injury to a building at each port, and the punishment for the crime of causing bodily injury to a building at present to ○○ by a victim who is the hotest crime)

1. Selection of a punishment;

0. Crimes of murder, homicide: Selection of death penalty

○ Crimes against Injury or injury to the present building: Imprisonment or imprisonment for life;

○ Crimes of destroying property, assault, or special assault: Selection of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Reduction of mental and physical weakness;

○ Articles 10(2) and 55(1)1 of each Criminal Act (the act of attempted death and murder: the act of attempted death of a person with mental disability)

○ Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the main building, fire prevention, injury to property, damage to property, violence, and special violence)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishment as life imprisonment for the murder of a victim gold ○○, with the largest punishment)

1. Confiscation;

1. Scope of imprisonment with prison labor under the law: Imprisonment with prison labor for life;

1. Scope of recommending punishment according to the standard for sentencing (the crime of murder and attempted murder at the time of sale) 11);

[Determination of Type] / [Type 5] Murder upon extreme casualties [Special Sentencing Person]

- Mitigation elements: mentally ill-minded persons (no one shall be responsible);

-Aggravated factors: planned murder crimes, victims vulnerable to crimes, cruel methods;

[The territory of recommendations and the scope of recommended forms] The area of special aggravation, life imprisonment, more than 3. Determination of sentence: life imprisonment;

Defendant 2 took advantage of the victim’s face to ○○○○○○○○, who did not know of the victim’s ability to change his or her body or mind by committing the crime. In the event of murder, Defendant 2 took advantage of the victim’s face, and then took advantage of the victim’s faces to kill himself or herself. Defendant 2 took advantage of the victim’s knife and knife and knife the victim’s knife’s knife and knife and knife the victim’s knife on the day of the crime. Defendant 2 took advantage of the victim’s knife and knife and knife the victim’s knife and knife and knife the victim’s knife and knife the victim’s knife.

However, as determined in the above Paragraph 3, if the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case under the circumstance that the defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions due to a man's illness, and the defendant's family members made efforts to hospitalize the defendant on several occasions, but did not find any particular method despite the defendant's efforts to do so, appropriate measures against the defendant.

Considering the fact that such a gap has occurred due to failure to take action, our society seems to be liable for some degree. Considering that the death penalty is extremely exceptional punishment which is a very cold and strong punishment that deprives human life of himself/herself of it, the sentence of death penalty should be allowed only when it is clearly admitted that there is an objective circumstance that can be justified by congrating the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5785, Aug. 27, 2015). In addition, it should be considered as a “a person who assumes the responsibility of the defendant who committed each of the crimes of this case in the state of mental and physical disability” under the principle of responsibility of criminal law and reporting only the illegality of the act committed by him/her and imposing the death penalty.

Therefore, even though it seems necessary to permanently isolate Defendant B from the society, it is difficult to view that the following acts are deemed reasonable to impose death penalty on Defendant B on the sole responsibility of Defendant. Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which was amended by Act No. 2015982, Dec. 18, 2018, which was enforced on the ground that Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which was amended by Act No. 201592, “the act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to a severe disorder, may be mitigated.” As such, “the act of a person with mental disability” can be mitigated voluntarily against a person with mental disability, but it is reasonable to impose life imprisonment on Defendant by applying the mitigation provision under the Act on the Law on the Law on the Law on the

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct and environment, the motive and circumstances leading to each of the instant crimes, the means and methods of committing the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the conditions for all the sentencing specified in the pleadings of the instant case, and the scope of the above recommended types as set forth in the sentencing criteria, etc., the sentence shall be determined as ordered.

Judges Lee Jin-dong

Completion of Judge

In addition, on the date of the oral argument at the trial, it is called a statement of opinion, such as the defense counsel's assertion of mental disability.

2) The phrase "that the consciousness is well-known" means "a state in which it can be clearly and clearly reconvened to the external gap." It is a mere fact that "the consciousness is clear."

One is that it can make a normal living(the testimony of ○○○○○ witness of the original trial, the trial records 286 pages).

3) South-North Korea talks with a spirit that enables people to be aware of the time and place. The remaining forces are not the area of judgment.

It means that the testimony of ○○○○○’s witness at the lower court, and the trial records are 287 pages).

4) Different from knife two points (No. 1,2) used as a tool for committing the crime at the time of committing the instant murder, etc., the Defendant was proved after the instant assault case occurred.

- - 1, 2 additional purchase was made.

5) The part that is doubtful of the result of the mental appraisal of a custody center is due to the fact that other people talk about it.

I seem to be.

6) “Adjustment of Appraisal” refers to an uneasy phenomenon that the body of the Defendant is lower than that of the Defendant, and the Defendant is against a religious group.

In any special way, the defendant made a statement that the appraisal of the defendant is adjusted as above (the defendant examination in the trial).

7) As the Defendant resided in the AC heading, it constitutes the immediate upper house of the Defendant.

8) Subjectly based on the subjective trend or network that another person’s words and actions are in connection with him/her without any basis or facts identified, such as the damage net.

It is easy to develop with mental symptoms.

9) The conclusion that did not distinguish between the accident’s alcoholic beverages and non-motor beverages during the course of the accident’s course was ultimately aimed at bypassing various sub-legal issues.

the present status. The term “the present status” means the present status.

10) Identification of a patient suffering from one’s own disease.

11) Although the sentencing guidelines are set for other crimes, the scope of recommendations for murder and attempted murder shall be death or life imprisonment.

As long as there are more than one person, the sentencing guidelines for the remaining crimes are not additionally examined.However, as the sentence is determined, the circumstances of money crimes are normal.

to take due account of each subparagraph of this section.