The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, around November 30, 2016, 14:20 of the facts charged, citing 1,000 won labs on the street in front of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as his hand, and attempted to attract the victim by stating that “in accordance with the thickness of 7,000 won” is “the victim’s right hand,” and that “if the victim refuses to do so, she would have a thickness of 0,000 won” to the victim’s right hand hand, and “if the victim does not do so, she would have a thickness of 0,000 won.” However, the Defendant did not commit a attempted crime without having the victim, who frighted fright, spreads the arms and escaped.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by the record, the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical loss having significant mental disability with the ability to discern things or make decisions due to dementia due to Albts’s machine illness.

I seem to appear.

Therefore, the crime of this case is committed in a state where the defendant has no ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder, and is not punishable pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act.

A. On February 2014, the Defendant visited the Dementia Center to conduct a dementia test. At the time, the Defendant was assessed as five points for clinical dementia assessment (Clinia RR rating) and was diagnosed as a satise dementia.

B. Since then, the Defendant used the medical treatment medicine regularly. However, on January 29, 2015, the symptoms of dementia continuously aggravated, and the degree of clinical dementia assessment was assessed as 8.5 points at 8.5 points. On January 12, 2016, the prosecutor was assessed as 12 points for the first time, and was diagnosed as having been able to view the symptoms of dementia as normal and have been frequently lost and to memory only for the past repeated times.

In addition, after the occurrence of the instant case, the self-inspection on January 16, 2017 was diagnosed as a middle witness.

(c)

On December 4, 2016, the Defendant did not understand the police officer’s inquiry at the time when he was investigated by an investigative agency on December 4, 2016, and did not properly answer the question.