Defendant

Defendant

Park Ho-sung

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2006 High Court Decision 2934 Decided February 23, 2007

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

The defendant did not slick with a vehicle owned by the victim, and did not damage the victim's vehicle, such as slicking.

(b) Mental disorder;

At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability due to drinking.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하면, ① 피해자 공소외인은 2006. 9. 3. 02:00경 자신의 집에서 잠을 자다 누군인가가 밖에서 소란을 피우는 것을 듣고 잠에서 깨어났고 이어 “꽝꽝”하는 소리를 듣고 밖으로 나간 사실, ② 피해자가 밖에 나갔을 때, 피고인은 서울 송파구 (이하 생략) 노상에 주차된 피해자 소유의 (차량번호 생략) 다마스 자동차 앞에 소변을 보고 위 자동차의 조수석 앞 문짝을 발로 찬 사실, ③ 이에 피해자가 경찰에 신고를 하여 출동한 경찰관들은 피고인을 현행범으로 체포한 사실, ④ 피고인의 위와 같은 범행으로 인하여 피해자 소유의 위 자동차의 조수석 앞 문짝이 약간 찌그러진 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다.

Although the Defendant submitted a written withdrawal of the report under the victim’s name that the vehicle does not want compensation for damages due to its destruction, it is evident that the chief door of the above vehicle was cut off by the police officer, even if it is based on the photograph (a page 21 of the investigation record) confirmed directly by the police officer, and thus, it is difficult to believe that the statement on the withdrawal of the report is written.

Therefore, since the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that he damaged the victim's vehicle, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is not accepted.

B. As to the assertion of mental disorder

According to the records of this case, even though the defendant was under influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case, in light of the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, attitude of statement to investigation agency, etc., it cannot be seen that the defendant suffered from drinking alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case, or did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and therefore, the defendant'

3. Conclusion

The defendant's appeal of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Nam-nam (Presiding Judge)