A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 29, 2016, around 15:35, the Defendant was placed in the Defendant’s bank, which prepared for the management of the damaged party’s crepit, such as 1 factoring in the market price equivalent to KRW 9,900, which is equivalent to KRW 9,900, the market price of the shopping company owned by the shopping company, 32,000, and 42,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of E and F;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 329 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection and observation

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that at the time of the crime of this case, the responsibility should be mitigated since the defendant suffered from eutic disorder and depression at the time of the crime of this case, since there was mental and physical weakness due to mental illness.

2. Determination

A. The phenomenon in which he was unable to suppress his impulse and thereby committing a crime is likely to be found even for normal persons. Thus, barring special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a person with such character defect requires acts that cannot be expected to control his impulse and to comply with the law, barring special circumstances. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the same character defect as the disorder in shocking is not a mental disorder, which is a reason for reduction or exemption of punishment, rather than a mental disorder within the original meaning that impedes the ability to discern things above. However, even if the mental disease within the original meaning that impedes the ability to discern things, or if it is deemed that the cause of the shocking defect is equal to that of the person with mental disorder within the original meaning even though it is very serious, it should be deemed that the crime of larceny is a crime of mental disorder (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1541, May 24, 2002).