The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case and the part of the case of attachment order shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for twelve years.

1. As to the part of the Defendant case, the lower court accepted the prosecutor’s request regarding the part regarding which the request for attachment order was filed, and rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part regarding which the request for probation order was filed, and only the Defendant and the person against whom the request for attachment order was filed (hereinafter “Defendant”) appealed.

Therefore, notwithstanding Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the former Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (amended by Act No. 16923, Feb. 4, 2020; hereinafter the same), the scope of trial of this court is limited to the part of the case of the defendant and the part of the case of the case of the application for the attachment order, and the part of the case of the request for the probation order is excluded from the subject of trial because there is no benefit of appeal.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability, mental disability, or mental disorder.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize it is illegal.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a 12-year imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mental disorder under Article 10 of the Criminal Act requires that the mental disorder, such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, other than mental disorder, caused by such mental disorder, lacks or reduces the ability to discern things or control action accordingly. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder was a person with normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, if he/she had the ability to discern things and control action, it cannot be deemed a mental disorder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12689, Jan. 24, 2013).

The defendant was registered as a person with a disability of the third degree in the mental retardation and from October 2002, the transferor of this case.