Criteria for determining the degree of mental disorder of defendant

The degree of mental disorder of a defendant is desirable in principle by the expert's appraisal, but it is not illegal because it is recognized without the expert's appraisal if it is judged by considering all the materials recorded in the record and the attitude of the defendant in the court.

Article 10 of the Criminal Act, Article 8 of the Social Protection Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do470 delivered on December 27, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 86Do1663 delivered on September 23, 1986

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Park Dong-won et al.

Gwangju High Court Decision 87No150, 87No15 decided May 7, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant and the requester for the custody (hereinafter the defendant)

Although the degree of mental disorder of the defendant is desirable in principle by the expert's appraisal, it cannot be said that there is an error of law by recognizing it without the expert's appraisal (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do470 delivered on December 27, 1983). In light of the evidence presented by the court below and the court of first instance and the defendant's attitude shown in the records, etc., considering the situation where the defendant lacks the ability to discern things due to mental disorder before and after the act being the cause of the custody in this case, it constitutes the requirements of medical treatment and custody under Article 8 (1) 2 of the Social Protection Act, and the measure of the defendant's mental disorder is just and acceptable and the degree of the mental disorder can be seen by the fact inquiry report and the doctor's opinion with respect to the marina prison prepared by the court of first instance. Thus, it is not erroneous in the judgment below that the expert's opinion did not receive an appraisal of mental disorder.

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

In this case where a six-month sentence of imprisonment is imposed, the grounds for unfair sentencing are not legitimate grounds for appeal.

3. Therefore, according to the records, the appeal is dismissed, and since the number of days of detention pending trial by statutory inclusion exceeds the period of punishment, the number of days of detention after the appeal shall not be aggregated. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)