Criteria for determining mental disorder;

The existence of mental disorder under Article 10 of the Criminal Code is a legal issue to be determined by the court in light of the purpose, etc. of the punishment system. However, in its judgment, the result of the mental diagnosis of the specialized appraiser is an important reference material. However, the court is not bound by the opinion, but must independently determine the existence of mental disorder by taking into account not only the result of such appraisal but also all the materials recorded in the record such as the background, means, and the defendant's behavior before

Article 10 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Do1240 Decided October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1742) Supreme Court Decision 91Do1473 Decided September 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2572) Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540 Decided December 22, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 657), Supreme Court Decision 94Do581 Decided May 13, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1752), Supreme Court Decision 94Do3163 Decided February 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1515)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney final00 et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 95No3141 delivered on February 9, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

1. We examine the defense counsel's grounds of appeal.

A. As to the first ground for appeal

The existence of mental disorder under Article 10 of the Criminal Code is a legal issue to be determined by the court in light of the purpose, etc. of the punishment system. However, in its judgment, the result of the mental diagnosis of the specialized appraiser is an important reference material. However, the court is not bound by the opinion, but must independently determine the existence of mental disorder by taking into account not only the result of such appraisal but also all the materials recorded in the records such as the circumstances and means of the crime, the defendant's behavior

According to the records, the defendant, as a professor until the day of the crime of this case, has engaged in social and family life such as running a company, etc. as well as conducting research and lectures, has planned and prepared the crime of this case in a close manner prior to the crime of this case, and moved to practice it. In particular, prior to the crime of this case, prior to the crime of this case, the defendant opened a iron door installed between the five and the six floors of the defendant's house, which are the place of the crime, in advance, to pretend that he had access to the crime of this case. After the crime of this case, the knife used for the crime of this case, clothes brought about at the time of the crime, and the bags containing them, etc., which led to the destruction of evidence. Accordingly, if the facts are identical, it cannot be deemed that the defendant has a lack or lack the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder at the time of

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Examining the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment; (b) relationship with the victim; (c) motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime; and (d) circumstances that are conditions for sentencing indicated in the records, such as circumstances after the commission of the crime, even when considering the circumstances asserted by defense counsel, the determination of the sentence by the lower court is appropriate; and (d) there is no substantial reason to recognize that

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)