The case recognized that the disease was in a state of mental disability at the time of crime.

If the symptoms of the defendant, as a patient suffering from a disease, who had been hospitalized in a hospital more than twice and has continued to have been worse, due to the fact that he was unable to commit a crime and suspended medication, it is reasonable to view him as a crime under a state of mental disorder.

Article 10 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (75 Gohap452)

We reverse the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

The forty-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is as follows. First, the court below found the defendant guilty of not examining the mental condition of the defendant, although it was a small breath at the time of the crime. The court below found the defendant guilty of not examining the mental condition of the defendant. In addition, the court below did not carefully examine the defendant, and it did not hear the confession through a limited trial. The court below erred in law due to incomplete trial or violated the spirit of the Juvenile Act. Second, the court below's determination of punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable. First, according to the court below's trial records, the first point of appeal is that the defendant stated that there was a mental disorder like the above argument, but all of the defendant and his father, who is the victim, did not have any mental disorder at the investigative agency, and the court below found the defendant guilty of the mental disorder of the defendant's mental disorder at the time of the crime without examining the mental disorder of the defendant.

In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the protocol of interrogation of the defendant, each protocol of statement on the non-indicted 1 prepared by the judicial police officer in charge of handling the duties of the prosecutor and the judicial police officer, each protocol of statement on the non-indicted 1 prepared by the defendant, each statement in the trial court of the defendant, and the mental appraisal statement on the defendant prepared by the non-indicted 2 in the trial court of the court of the defendant, the defendant was hospitalized in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for about 30 days in December 1973 and about 40 days in June 1974, the defendant was hospitalized in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the above disease, and even about 40 days in June 1974, the above disease was somewhat aggravated due to the relation which continued to dissatising the medication of the unsatisiness of the crime, which is presumed to have been in the state of a satulic disorder caused by the liver, and thus, if we examine the motive, method, etc. that prevented the victim from committing the crime of this case, the above disease.

Therefore, since it is obvious that the court below erred in sentencing against the defendant without reducing punishment for such reason, and it has influenced the judgment, the reason for appeal in relation thereto should be accepted. Meanwhile, according to the records of the case, as the defendant was born on December 8, 1955 and was already adult at the time of sentencing, the court below's judgment which sentenced a non-permanent sentence without making a decision on the remaining reasons for appeal should not be exempted from any mother or destruction.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members shall be decided again after pleading.

The criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding case of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the so-called judgment of the defendant falls under Article 257 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act. Since this is an act of a person with mental disability, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 10 months within the scope of the term of punishment for which statutory mitigation has been made pursuant to Articles 10 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act. In accordance with Article 57 of the same Act, 45 days during the period of detention prior to the sentence of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above punishment, and the defendant shall be the first offender, and the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for 2 years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive pursuant to Article 62 of the same Act, taking into account the circumstances such as the point where the victim is

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)