A case where it is recognized that a mental disorder was in a state of mental disability at the time of crime.

In a case where the defendant had been under medical care by causing a mental disorder that has been caused before the year of the crime, and the training of the reserve forces has been suspended by leaving without permission, and where the above mental disorder and the related symptoms have been serious at the time of the crime, it is reasonable to view that the crime in the state of mental disorder is committed.

Article 10 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Do1358 Decided July 28, 1970 (Daad 9082, Supreme Court Decision 18B-75, Decision summary Article 10(14)126 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant

Defendant

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court Decision 75Gohap54 decided May 1, 201

We reverse the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The ninety-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

압수된 손톱깍기형 칼 1개(증 제1호)를 피고인으로부터 몰수한다.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: first, the defendant has a mental disorder in peace; more than once the crime was committed, the defendant is drunk at the time of the crime, and thus, if the defendant was found to have a mental disorder at the time of the crime, it would not have committed the crime of this case. However, if the defendant was found to have a mental disorder at the time of the crime, it would not have committed the crime of this case, and the court below found the defendant guilty. In the end, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all the necessary deliberations on the mental disorder and disorder of the defendant, and second, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable (the summary of the grounds for appeal by counsel is the same as

Therefore, in light of the records, the first review of the part of the argument for mistake of facts, and the comprehensive review of the evidence duly adopted by the court below in light of the records, the defendant's facts constituting the case can be sufficiently recognized, and the records of the court below's fact-finding process has no errors of law as pointed out otherwise, and the grounds for appeal as to this point cannot be accepted.

Next, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is evident that the defendant alleged that he was drunk at the time of the crime of this case. However, if the defendant examined the records and the means and methods of the crime at the time of driving, it may be recognized that even if he drinking, it did not reach the level of mental disorder. Furthermore, as to the mental condition of the defendant at the time of the crime of this case, part of the mental appraisal document of the defendant prepared by the non-indicted witness at the time of the crime, the confirmation document for the preparation of the asbestos fluor of Seosan-gun, Seosan-gun, the certificate for the preparation of the asbestos flusium submitted by the defendant at the trial, and the certificate for the suspension of training of the reserve forces in the second register of the flusium belonging to the reserve forces attached to the reserve forces, the defendant had been suffering from mental disorder caused by mental disorder, and it is recognized that the defendant had a mental disorder at the time of training without permission on January 1, 1975.

Therefore, since the court below's decision on the punishment against the defendant who did not legally mitigate for this reason was affected by the judgment in violation of the law, the grounds for appeal on this point should be accepted. Therefore, without considering the need for determining the above argument on unfair sentencing, the court below reversed the original judgment under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and decided again by the party members.

Criminal facts recognized as a member and evidence thereof are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the same Act.

Law No. 500

피고인의 판시 소위는 형법 제342조 , 제334조 제2항 , 1항 , 제333조 에 해당하는바 소정형중 유기징역형을 선택하고, 이는 심신미약자의 행위이므로 같은법 제10조 2항 , 제55조 1항 3호 에 의하여 법률상의 감경을 하고, 미수범이므로 같은법 제25조 2항 , 제55조 1항 3호 에 의하여 거듭 미수감경한 형기범위내에서 피고인을 징역 1년 6월에 처하고, 같은법 제57조 에 의하여 원심판결선고전 구금일수중 95일을 위 형에 산입하고, 압수된 손톱깍기 칼 1개(증 제1호)는 판시 범행에 제공한 물건으로서 범인이외의 자의 소유에 속하지 아니하므로 같은법 제48조 1항 1호 에 의하여 이를 몰수하는 것이다.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)