beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal: Mental disorder and unreasonable sentencing;
2. Determination
A. (1) The “mental disorder” as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act is required not to have mental disorder such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, but to have mental disorder caused by such mental disorder, which lacks or reduces the ability to discern things or control action accordingly.
Therefore, even if a person is a mentally disabled person, if he/she had normal ability to discern things and control behavior at the time of crime, he/she cannot be recognized as a mental disorder.
(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do1425 delivered on August 18, 192, etc.). On the other hand, “ alcohol ozone” is a disease that can be treated through mental therapy and outpatient practice, etc. (as seen below, the Defendant is also diagnosed as alcohol ozone and received treatment for a period of four years) and cannot be said to require a person who has a certificate of alcohol respect to an act that is unable to control his impulse and demand compliance with the law. Thus, even if there is a disease, it cannot be deemed that the disease constitutes a mental disorder, which is the cause for the reduction of punishment for each of the crimes of this case, generally constitutes a cause for the reduction of punishment for each of the crimes of this case. However, there is only room for recognizing mental and physical disorder only in exceptional cases where the symptoms are deemed to be the same as the person with mental disorder in its original meaning due to serious seriousness, or where there is an exceptional case resulting in concurrent with other grounds for mental and physical disorder.
In the instant case, according to the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecution [120 pages of investigation record], the Defendant is diagnosed as “a certificate of alcohol alcohol” in the first year of high school and received treatment for four years, but further, in light of the various circumstances at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant is deemed to have proved alcohol content at the time of the instant crime.