In a case where the Defendant, who was accommodated in a prison, was charged with special injury on the ground that he glicked with “a misunderstanding containing a flick rice station”, which was a dangerous object through an corrosion inside the confinement room, was glicked with the victim who gleeped the victim Gap, who was in front of the confinement room, by taking a trial expenses, and was charged with special injury, the case holding that the Defendant found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the “Mlick contained in the rice farm,” which was the Defendant’s whole circumstances, does not constitute a dangerous object that may cause harm to the life or body of Gap or third parties, on the grounds that the “Ml

It is a case prosecuted for special injury on the ground that: (a) the Defendant, who is being admitted to a prison, took part in a Korean-style rice miller, as a scambling to “dipate scam,” and was charged with committing a scambling to the victim “A” before the confinement room, which is a dangerous object through an exhauster in the confinement room, and was committing a scambling to “a scam including a hot rice miller.”

The case holding that although the above prison ordinarily completed 06:00 cooking, and the country was kept lids in a lid with a stoves of the raw material for stoves without any harm, and the country is eating food by delivering food to each stoves around 07:00, and the temperature of the prison is considerably low during considerable time from the completion of cooking in light of empirical rule, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the same risk as before stoves, and in light of the testimony of the first instance court, it cannot be seen that the defendant's stoves or s toves of the defendant's body without any harm to the defendant's body, and it cannot be seen that there was no harm to the defendant's body due to the defendant's stoves without any harm to the defendant's stoves, and that the defendant's stoves or s toves of the defendant's body, including the defendant's stoves, without any harm to the defendant's body.

Articles 257(1) and 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Roster et al. and one other

Attorney Yu-Gyeong

Jeonju District Court Decision 2017Ra98 decided October 19, 2017

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles

Although recognizing the fact that the Defendant had a misunderstanding containing the country of rice culture, the Defendant did not constitute a dangerous object in the crime of special injury because the temperature of the rice culture station was relatively low. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the special injury in this case.

(b) Mental illness;

The Defendant had caused the instant crime under the influence of taking drugs for mental disorders, such as shock disorder and uneasiness, etc., resulting in the instant crime in a state that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

C. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. This part of the facts charged

On July 30, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 07:35 on July 30, 2016, at the first lower-class room of the 1st, the 1st, lower-class room of the above prison, the Defendant: (b) carried the victim Nonindicted 1, who was in front of the above confinement room, with the victim Nonindicted 1, who was in front of the above confinement room, “dived the victim whether he would go against the Guide,” and (c) carried the victim’s misunderstanding that was in front of the above confinement room, which was containing a dangerous object through the exhaustle of the entrance in the confinement room, and carried the victim’s picture with the right hand on the date of treatment and the right 2 balance.

B. The judgment of the court below

원심은, 피해자가 원심에 이르기까지 일관되게 ‘피고인이 배식 중이던 자신을 향해 갑자기 뜨거운 떡국이 담긴 그릇을 집어 던져 우측 손 부위가 빨갛게 홍조를 띤 경도 화상을 입었다’고 진술하고 있고, 당시 피해자를 진료한 의사가 작성한 소견서의 내용도 위 진술과 일치하며, 가열조리가 마쳐지고 5분 정도가 지난 상태의 국물이 피부에 닿을 경우 화상의 원인이 되기에 충분하므로, 이 사건 상해 범행의 도구로 사용된 떡국은 특수상해죄에서 정한 위험한 물건에 해당한다고 보기에 충분하다고 판단하였다.

C. Judgment of the court below

Whether a certain thing constitutes a “hazardous thing” ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to life or body when using the thing in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do176, May 14, 2004; 2007Do9624, Jan. 17, 2008).

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the “Miseman,” which was the Defendant, cannot be deemed to constitute a dangerous object that may cause harm to the life or body of the victim or a third party.

(1) Generally, in 06:00, ○○○○ Prison, the State has completed the cooking of an adverging plant, and the State immediately stored lids in a ice container with a ice lease material stored, and the lids are being transported by delivering food to each accommodation unit at around 07:00, when the meteorological personnel inspection was completed (the inquiry report to the ○○○○ Prison). Even if the ○○○○ Prison used the lids to make the nation visible from the date of completion of cooking in light of the empirical rule, it appears that the temperature was considerably lowered between the time after the completion of cooking and the time of distribution in light of the empirical rule. As such, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the same risk as that immediately after her dverging rice, rice, and rice, for which the Defendant had been engaged, had the same risk as that immediately after her dverging.

(2) The victim testified at the court below that "at the time of approximately one to two months ago, the country was fit as the State, and the prisoner was fluored with her hand, but there was no video victim due to this," which stated that "(the trial record No. 88-89 pages) was fluored by the State, but there was no video victim." (The trial record No. 88-89 pages) The victim did not seem to have been fluored to the extent that the fluor’s temperature was fluordddd

(3) Meanwhile, the Defendant did not directly act as aground or dust to the victim with a son, but did not directly see the Defendant’s negligence, but did so, in the accommodation room, a part of the Defendant’s body was contacted with the victim’s body. The body part of the victim’s body part, which is adjacent to the rice culture station, was the right hand hand hand over and the bridge between the victim’s body part, which is not the large side of the aftermath, such as the face.

(4) Although the victim was receiving soup treatment that ices were fryed on the return by filing an appeal against the Defendant’s Defendant’s rice disease with the Defendant’s home country, she did not receive any additional treatment or prescription for one week after being diagnosed only by the doctor affiliated with the Defendant’s home council members, and only was paid with Anthropira sat, and did not undergo any additional treatment or prescription. As a result, the victim was off or frighted with the skin of the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this portion of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s assertion assigning this error

3. Determination as to the claim of mental disability

A. The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to such mental disorders and drug side effects, although he was found to have been in a state of mental disorder, such as shock disorder, etc., at the time of the instant crime.

B. Judgment of the court below

(1) First, we examine whether the Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime due to mental disorder.

The phenomenon of suppressing a crime due to failure to suppress one's impulse is likely to be found even for the normal person, and it cannot be deemed that a person with such character defect requires an act that is not expected to suppress one's impulse and to demand compliance with the law, barring special circumstances. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the same character defect as the shock disorder, in principle, does not constitute a mental disorder, which is the reason for reduction or exemption of punishment. However, even if the shock disorder is similar to that of the shock disorder, if it is very serious and it can be evaluated to be equal to that of the person with the original meaning, the crime caused by mental disorder shall be deemed to be a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do3163, Feb. 24, 1995, etc.).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was treated continuously after being diagnosed by the doctor belonging to the △△△△ Hospital on August 8, 2016, which was after having been admitted to the prison, and had been treated continuously. From July 2016 to July 2016, the fact that the Defendant repeatedly committed assault and booming against prisoners and correctional public officials in the prison without any special motive is recognized.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, (a) the Defendant appears to have been diagnosed with mental illness only before August 8, 2016; (b) the Defendant committed violent crimes against prisoners and correctional officials in prison on July 26, 2016; and (c) on the other hand, the Defendant did not easily prevent the Defendant from committing a planned crime, such as preparing a false complaint with the intent to have a correctional officer subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary action; (c) the Defendant submitted a statement to the investigative agency on July 28, 2016 that “the Defendant faithfully prepared and submitted to the investigative agency a false statement that “the Defendant was subject to suspicion and assault from a correctional official”; and (d) the Defendant submitted a statement to the effect that “the remaining prison life after recognizing his/her behavior caused on July 26, 2016,” and it is difficult to view the Defendant’s behavior to the extent that he/she made and submitted a false statement to reflect his/her ability in the protection room.

(2) Next, we examine whether the Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime by side effect of drugs.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant has continuously increased the mental and physical strength after receiving the diagnosis of shock disorder, etc., and the statement of some drugs taken by the defendant contains side effects such as aggressive response, decentralization, and red eye. However, the defendant's mental and medical treatment period, the defendant's attitude immediately after the crime of this case or immediately after the crime of this case, and non-indicted 2 of the mental and medical specialist designated as professional examiners at the trial of the court, "the drugs taken by the defendant have the effect of alleviating, aggressiveness, and decentralization, and it does not indicate side effects that may cause abnormal behavior, and generally, mental and medical drugs have no special symptoms at the early stage of taking place."

(3) Ultimately, the judgment of the court below on this part is just, and there is no error pointing out by the defendant.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the appeal by the defendant as to the special injury crime part cannot be maintained as it is, and since this part and the remaining part are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence is imposed in the original judgment, the original judgment is reversed in its entirety. Without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, the original judgment is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts constituting the crime and evidence acknowledged by this court is as follows, except for the change of Paragraph 5 (Special Injury to Victims Non-Indicted 1) in the facts constituting the crime of the judgment below as follows, and therefore, it is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with

5. Injury to the victim non-indicted 1

On July 30, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 07:35, at the fourth room of the 1nd floor, the 1st floor of the accommodation unit in the above prison, the victim Nonindicted Party 1, who divided into the instant prison (hereinafter referred to as “dynasium”) to “dynasium”, (b) the victim Nonindicted Party 1, who was in front of the above accommodation, was able to see whether he was “dynasium”, and (c) the victim, who was in front of the above accommodation, was fryed with the entrance in the accommodation room, thereby raising the misunderstanding to the victim, thereby raising the victim a misunderstanding that contained a hot lusium in the instant accommodation,

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 156 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of violence) of each Criminal Act, Article 141 (1) of the Criminal

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments on the Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties against Non-Party 3 and the Crimes of Bodily Injury)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Mitigation of confession;

Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and the first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion (the part concerning the crime of injury to the victim non-indicted 1)

Even though the victim did not know about an over-the-counter medication, an over-the-counter medication, on the body side of the Korean body, and did not receive any other additional treatment, the victim naturally cured without any special after the lapse of the time, and the pictures suffered by the victim do not constitute an injury under the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below (i.e., the victim non-indicted 1): (a) in the court below, the victim non-indicted 1 found that "the victim left the room at the time of coming to the country of rice Transportation" (the victim non-indicted 1): (b) the victim left the room at the time of coming to the country of rice Transportation; (c) while the skin fee was not left off, there was a heat or pain, and there was a water house at the right hand, and he was treated for smoking at the medical room; and (d) the victim was provided with a red light at the medical room. The medical room stated that "the doctor affiliated to the prison was unaware of the right hand and the static course for one week," and (e) the victim diagnosed the victim with the symptoms of this, and paid a tobacco with "hyeong-do image" (163 pages of the investigation record), it is reasonable to deem that the victim was also physically damaged by pictures, and there is no need to treat the victim's body in light of natural conditions.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

Although the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and is living under confinement in prison, the Defendant repeatedly, instead of following the instruction of correction workers, and imprisons other prisoners or correction workers, and disturbs correctional order. The nature of the crime is grave. Since the same act is repeated from the crime of this case to the present time, it is not good to attitude after the crime. The Defendant again committed the crime of this case even though he had the record of having been sentenced to punishment due to violent crimes such as obstruction of performance of official duties or injury, even though he had committed the crime of this case.

On the other hand, the fact that the crime of special injury, which the court below found guilty, is judged not guilty, the defendant recognized most of the crime of this case, the confession of the crime of this case without accusation, and the revocation of a false complaint, and the damage to property of this case is not relatively large. The whole crime of this case is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime for which the judgment became final and the crime of this case should be considered at the same time in relation

The punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the above circumstances and other various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, background, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc.

This part of the facts charged is the same as the above 2. A.C., which constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in the above 2.C., and thus, a not-guilty verdict should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty of a bodily injury included in the facts charged

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge)