The case holding that it was found that drinking breath at the time of crime and was in a state of mental disability

In light of the fact that the Defendant, as at the time of the commission of the crime, 2 Hobbes, in excess of the horizontal volume at the time of the commission of the crime, divided 2 bbbes and 2 bbbes and 2 bbbes, followed the Defendant, alone, 3 soldiers of the same bbbes and bbes. The victim, who the Defendant’s strong withdrawal of the property, was well aware of the Defendant’s residence with his knowledge of the fact that the Defendant was living together, and the Defendant’s new attack after the commission of the crime, was in a state in which he had weak ability to discern things or make decisions by

Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Msan District Court (84Gohap285)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One hundred and seventy-five days of detention days prior to the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the defendant was guilty of the defendant, although he was her at one time, even though he was her son's her son, he did not cause her son's strong withdrawal of money or goods, the court below found the defendant guilty. The judgment of the court below is erroneous because it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment. Although the first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel was under the influence of alcohol, the defendant was imprisoned against the crime of this case in the state of mental and physical disorder, the court below's decision which did not consider the first point in determining the criminal liability of the defendant and the punishment was erroneous in misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The second point is that the judgment of the court below which sentenced the defendant for three years and six months to the defendant in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the environment at hand, and the current family situation at hand, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is too unfair.

Therefore, examining the evidence duly admitted by the court below in comparison with the records, the defendant's facts constituting the crime of this case can be recognized, and no other error is found as pointed out in the court below's argument in the process of fact-finding, and the defendant's ground of appeal claiming a mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

However, comprehensively taking account of each of the statements and statements in the court below and the court below's decision and each protocol of examination of suspect regarding the defendant in preparation of administrative affairs against the prosecutor and judicial police officer, the defendant can be found to have committed the crime of this case under the condition that two sub-bes, one week, two soldiers, and two soldiers, more than the usual amount at the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant, together with the same three soldiers, had committed the crime of this case. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the law of this case as to the defendant's mental and physical disorder within the necessary scope of the punishment of this case, since it is hard to find that the defendant had no ability to distinguish or decide the defendant's intention under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and it is hard to find that the defendant's mental and physical disorder of this case had no ability to do so under the law of this case.

Therefore, a party member shall reverse the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it shall be decided as follows after pleading.

In addition to adding "the defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of the crime in this case" to the end of the criminal facts column, the summary of the criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the evidence thereof is the same as that of the judgment of the court below. Therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article

The defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but the above argument is without merit in the judgment of the above grounds of appeal.

The so-called "the judgment of the defendant" falls under Articles 337 and 33 of the Criminal Act, and the above is an act of a person with a mental disability, so the defendant is legally mitigated pursuant to Articles 10 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, since the defendant is an initial offender, etc., and there are reasons for considering the circumstances, such as the defendant's primary offender, etc., he shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years within the period of punishment reduced according to Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, and one hundred and seventy-five days out of the number of detention days before the sentence of the judgment of the court below is included in the above punishment pursuant to Article 57 of the same Act.

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

Judges Choi Han-ro (Presiding Judge)