beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case in a state of mental disability.
The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and four months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
Judgment
The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes under the influence of alcohol. However, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the method and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant did not seem to have committed each of the instant crimes under the influence of alcohol, where the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.
Unlike this premise, even when it is assumed that the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case under the influence of alcohol and lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, the defendant is deemed to have committed the crimes in this case under the same veterinary act (in spite of the absence of the intent or ability to pay expenses, the method of drinking in an entertainment drinking house with entertainment receptionist members) as the crimes in this case, despite the fact that he had been punished several times by the same method (in spite of the absence of the intention or ability to pay the expenses, the defendant is again committed each of the crimes in this case under the influence of alcohol and lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. As such, the defendant predicted the occurrence of danger and caused the state of mental disorder by himself, and thus, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act concerning mental and physical disability does not apply (Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act)
Although the Defendant had had been punished more than once due to the same criminal act as the instant several laws, he/she again committed several times during the repeated crime period during which the execution of the sentence has not yet been completed, and the risk of repeating a crime seems to be very high, and not only did it reach an agreement with the victim I until the trial of the case, but also did damage.