When there is a statement of the facts constituting the legal grounds barring the formation of a crime, or of an aggravated or mitigated punishment, the judgment thereon shall be clearly stated.

If there is a change in that the defendant is unable to memory because he was drunk at the time of committing a crime in the time of the time when he committed a scambling, it shall be clear that he made the argument under Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act, and therefore, the judgment on it shall be clearly stated in accordance with Article 368(2) of the former Military Court Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3993, Dec.

Article 368(2) of the Military Court Act, Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 68No1142 delivered on November 19, 1969

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Army, High School, and Military Court Council.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by a public defender

According to Article 368(2) of the Military Court-Martial Law, when there is a statement of the fact that is the reason for the establishment of a legal crime, the increase or decrease of punishment, or the reason for reduction or exemption of punishment, it shall be clearly stated. According to the records, since the defendant is only drunk at the time of the crime in this case, and there is no memory as to the crime in this case, it is obvious that the defendant made a claim under Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the first instance court and the original judgment do not clearly state their decision on the reason thereof, and it is obvious that this affected the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this point.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kimchi-bi (Presiding Judge)