The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

Applicant for Medical Treatment and Custody (as to the judgment of the court of first instance), the punishment sentenced by the court of first instance on the defendant's case (as to the judgment of the court of first instance) is too unreasonable.

In light of the fact that the Defendant and the applicant for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) have the same kind of violent crime, such as injury, and the degree of violence is insignificant, and the Defendant has consistently received mental and medical treatment from around 2010 without family help, the lower court ordering medical treatment and custody is unreasonable on the grounds that the need for medical treatment and the risk of recidivism is not recognized.

The punishment sentenced by the second court (two years of probation, probation, and lecture attendance order for six months of imprisonment) by the public prosecutor (the second court's judgment against the court below) is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the defendant's case and the judgment of the court of second instance regarding the judgment of the court of first instance are sentenced to each of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance. The court of second instance

Since the first and second judgment against the defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the part of the first judgment against the defendant and the second judgment against the defendant cannot be maintained as they are.

The appellate court for ex officio determination of the judgment of the second instance may ex officio examine whether the defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do870, Apr. 9, 2009). In the trial hearing statement (the trial record 18 pages) submitted by a state appointed defense counsel at the second instance court on February 23, 2016, the fact that the defendant suffered from mental illness, such as alcohol poisoning for a long time and was hospitalized at a mental hospital in the past, is stated that the defendant was hospitalized at the second instance court.