beta
Text
Of the confiscated parts of the judgment of the court below, four concrete sculptures (No. 6), one studio slick (No. 26) shall be applied.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the result of the judgment of the court below's entrustment of mental evaluation of the defendant by the court of original instance, the defendant is presumed to have been in a state of mental disability where the ability to distinguish property and decision-making ability has been deteriorated due to repeated depression at the time of the crime of this case. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on mental disability, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In light of the overall circumstances of this case's unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the very serious nature of the crime of this case committed by the prosecutor (unfairness) by the defendant, it is reasonable to impose the defendant death penalty on the defendant because the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The ex officio determination of the part of the judgment below regarding confiscation is limited to articles provided in the criminal act, etc. which do not belong to a person other than the criminal or are acquired by a person other than the criminal with the knowledge of the fact after the crime. According to the records, four concrete sculptures (Evidence 6) seized by the defendant from the defendant are deemed to be articles left away from the wall during the process of drilling the boiler into a small bank where the defendant was the victim D or E, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above articles were provided or intended to be provided to the criminal act of this case, or that they were acquired by a person other than the criminal with the knowledge of the fact after the crime, and there is no evidence to support that the above articles were provided or intended to be acquired by the defendant as articles provided or intended to be provided to the victim D or E (No. 26) in the crime of this case.
Nevertheless, the court below rejected the seized concrete structure.