beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") shall be mitigated since they were in a state of mental disability by taking advantage of the hazardous chemical substance at the time of committing the crime of Ma of paragraph 1 of the judgment below.
B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on September 14, 2014, on the grounds that the Defendant, at around 16:40 on September 14, 2014, phoneed to the Jinhae Police Station in advance, voluntarily surrenders to the Jinhae Police Station and accordingly,
C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one hundred years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The part 1 of the defendant's case is insufficient to prove that the defendant inhaled the main body at the time of the crime of the 1-Ma of the judgment of the court below as to the claim of mental disability (However, the defendant stated at the investigative agency that he inhaled the main body at the time of the crime of the 1-Ma of the judgment of the court below, and the victim stated at the investigative agency that
(2) Even if the Defendant inhales it, considering all the circumstances, such as the content of the crime, the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the lower court, it does not seem that the Defendant’s inhaled it does not seem that there was no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) The Defendant’s assertion as to misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a confession and statement of intent to voluntarily report and seek the disposition to the government authority responsible for the investigation. As such, it is merely a confession that the Defendant expresses the criminal facts in response to an official questioning or investigation by the investigative agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3133, Oct. 14, 2004).