beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by both medical care and custody applicants and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the Appellant for the Medical Care and Custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) discussed that the assertion of misapprehension of the existing legal doctrine was not accepted by the lower court on the first trial date of the first trial of the first instance court, and held a reply to this effect, if the lower court did not recognize that the Defendant had not been in a physical and mental state.
1) The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was physically and mentally weak due to the outbreak of a mental fission disorder while he administered phiphonephones.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s argument on mental and physical weakness, the lower court also asserted as the grounds for appeal in this part, and according to the record, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant had suffered mental disorders caused by mental division. However, in light of the background, means and result of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, and the Defendant’s statement attitude in the court of the lower court and the investigative agency at the time of the instant crime, it does not appear that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental division at the time of the instant crime, and even if the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions, the lower court did not have the ability to discern things as claimed.
Even if this is not due to the defendant's mental division, but due to the fact that the defendant administered a penphone, which is a local mental medicine prior to the crime, and was in a state of restitution, it is determined that the defendant's act does not apply the reduction provision of the mentally and physically weak person in accordance with Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act.
Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below with a thorough comparison of various circumstances cited by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is so argued by the defendant.