2020No1013 Rape, confinement, special intimidation, damage to property, interference with business

200Noduno20 (combined) Medical Treatment and Custody

A

Defendant

Paryaryary, Garyaryary, Garyaryary, Medical Treatment and Custody Request), and Satellite State (Public Trial)

Attorney Kim Do-sung (Korean)

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2019Gohap510, 2020Gohap21 (Joint) Decided May 22, 2020

January 7, 2021

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The medical treatment and custody claim of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Mental illness;

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was suffering from mental illness, such as personality disorder, lack of care, and excessive behavior, and was in a state of mental disorder.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the claim of mental disability

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case in an excessive interest is recognized.

However, according to the process and means of the crime, the behavior of the defendant before and after the crime, and the result of the mental appraisal commission of the Medical Treatment and Custody Center of this court, it is not observed to the extent that the defendant would have a unique mind at the time of the crime in this case, and it is presumed that the defendant had the ability to discern things at the time of the crime in this case. In light of the above, it is not deemed that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things at the time of the crime in this case

B. Regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing

The lower court, in light of the content and form of the instant crime, etc., committed the instant crime, committed the instant crime beyond 50 times against the Defendant, and, in particular, committed the instant crime during the repeated crime due to interference with business, and committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period, the victim B, I, and J were punished by the Defendant, due to the unfavorable circumstances against the Defendant, the Defendant is not only against the Defendant, but also led to an agreement with the victim G with the obstruction of business, and the Defendant lost the personality of due care and the loss of the border personality, based on the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, sentenced to the lowest sentence out of the scope of the punishment.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been appropriately determined taking into account the aforementioned various circumstances, and even if the materials related to divorce lawsuit submitted in the trial, there are no new circumstances or changes in special circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, criminal records, circumstances, and result of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy to the extent of deviating from the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Determination on claims for medical treatment and custody

Since a prosecutor filed a request for medical treatment and custody in the trial, it is judged.

A. Summary of grounds for the medical treatment and custody application

A person who commits a crime equivalent to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment, as stated in the judgment of the court below, in a state of mental disability caused by mental illness, such as mental illness such as emotional distress, decentralization, excessive behavioral disorder, etc., needs to be treated at a medical treatment and custody facility for mental disorder, and is in danger of recidivism

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted at the lower court and the lower court, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, which constitutes the requirements for medical treatment and custody, is recognized as the mental and physical disability of the Defendant, or requires medical treatment at the

1) According to the clinical result with respect to the Defendant, the Defendant appears to have committed an aggressive act without considering the following: (a) the Defendant, when suffering from stress situations, may easily and impregnded, e.g., unstable and decentralization; (b) aggressive behavior may be expressed; (c) the impulse is sufficiently satisfied; (d) the impulse is insufficient to meet; and (e) his behavior may result in his or her behavior.

However, these aspects are considered to be due to the nature characteristics that have been maintained for a long time, and it is not judged to be a disease that requires mental therapy.

2) According to the result of the Mental Appraisal Commission with respect to the Medical Treatment and Custody Director of this Court, the Defendant appears to have lost self-control and to have been in the instant crime, but it is presumed to have had the ability to discern things at that time and ability to make decisions.

3) As a result of the above mental appraisal commission, the Medical Treatment and Custody Director stated the Defendant’s final opinion that there is no matter of mental treatment at the Medical Treatment and Custody Center.

4. Conclusion

Since both an appeal by a defendant and a prosecutor's claim for medical treatment and custody are without merit, all of them shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the latter part of Article 12 (1) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act.

The realization of the judge's judgment

Judge Roster

Judges Song Jae-Gyeong