According to the doctor's opinion, it is suspected that the defendant's crime was a state of mental disorder and that the court below committed an unlawful crime in the incomplete hearing because it did not reach the court below's determination as to whether the defendant was a mentally ill person in the appellate brief.

In light of the doctor's opinion, the defendant stated that he was hospitalized at a national mental hospital over seven months from January 1, 1989 and that he was hospitalized at the national mental hospital after May 1991, the defendant requires at least one year. In the interrogation of the defendant's suspect who prepared the prosecutor's protocol on the defendant's interrogation of the defendant, the defendant stated that he was in a state of mental illness at the time when he was hospitalized at the national mental hospital. According to this, there is a doubt that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime in this case, and the defendant submitted a statement of reasons for appeal that the defendant was a mentally ill person. Thus, the court below should have discovered the mental disorder of the defendant, but it did not reach the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1239 delivered on July 26, 1983 (Gong1983,1375), 84Do2785 delivered on February 14, 1984 (Gong1984,474), 89Do583 delivered on September 26, 1989 (Gong1989,1621)

A

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No4744 delivered on October 1, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Criminal Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The lower court convicted the Defendant on the premise that the Defendant was not in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, according to the doctor B’s statement of opinion, the defendant, from January 13, 1989 to August 8, 198 of the same year, stated that he was hospitalized at a national mental hospital above the mental illness center and was in need of medical treatment for more than one year after May 13, 1991 (it is 30 in investigation records). In the examination of the suspect as to the defendant in the preparation of the prosecutor’s protocol, the defendant stated that he was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime in this case, and that he was able to resolve how he was able to memory when he was hospitalized at the national mental hospital (it is 39 in investigation records, 40 in investigation records). According to this, it is doubtful that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime in this case, and when the defendant submitted the statement of reasons for appeal, the court below should have clarified whether or not the defendant was a mental disorder, but it did not reach this point and affected the conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)