beta
Main Issues
The case holding that there was an error of omission of judgment in the judgment of the court below where the court below did not make any judgment on whether the defendant's defense counsel's written opinion and summary of pleading, and the first trial of the court of first instance, stating that "at the time of criminal conduct, it was a mental or physical state of the impulse disorder at the time of the criminal conduct."
[Reference Provisions]
Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Defendant
Defense Counsel
Attorneys Shin Yong-sung et al.
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2009No1555 decided January 21, 2010
Text
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that in a case where a defendant has made a statement of reasons barring the formation of a crime under law, or facts constituting grounds for the increase or decrease of punishment, or reduction or exemption of punishment, determination thereof shall be clearly stated.
According to the records, the defendant's defense counsel's written opinion, summary of pleading, and the date of the first trial of the court of first instance, stating that "at the time of the commission of the crime, it was a quasi-incompetent of the impulse disorder at the time of the commission of the crime," and such statement constitutes "a statement of facts constituting grounds for the exemption of punishment or punishment" under Article 323 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Therefore, even though the court below should have specified the judgment on the above, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant received several times of mental and physical treatment due to shock disorder, etc., but did not make any judgment on the issue of mental and physical disability at all.
If so, the court below erred in the omission of judgment in violation of Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.
2. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)