(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.12.10.선고 2018고합267 판결

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000. Where the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 10,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

A candidate for medical treatment and custody shall be punished by medical treatment and custody.

Reasons

Criminal facts and facts of the cause of medical treatment and custody [mental history and criminal records of the defendant]

Defendant and Applicant for Medical Treatment and Custody (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) had been under diagnosis of a similar person at a hospital B at the age of five. From around January 2014 to around January 2018, Defendant repeated entrance and discharge to Eunpyeong Hospital, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City University Hospital, and C Special Protection Facilities due to autism. On February 16, 2016, Defendant and Appellant for Medical Treatment and Custody (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) filed a request for medical treatment and custody with the Seoul Western District Court on April 2, 2018, with the record of dismissal on July 20, 2018, Defendant filed a request for summary order as property damage and damage to Seoul Western District Court on seven occasions as well as the record of criminal violence committed during the seven-year period.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendant, on August 7, 2018, under a state that the ability to distinguish things and make decisions are weak due to a minor disorder, etc. in light of light-defluence, etc.

1. In front of the D apartment E-dong, Seodaemun-gu Seoul, without any justifiable reason, the victim F (n, 4 years old) was laid down by hand with the body flick height of the victim without any reason, and then the victim was laid down by the Defendant’s blick height, and the victim was flicked by India with the victim’s blick, so the victim’s blick-in thro

2. At H convenience points in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-gu Seoul, the victim was assaulted by the victim (the victim (the victim (the victim) who is the father of F, due to the act described in paragraph (1), who was the act as described in paragraph (1), and was aware of the victim's face at one time by drinking. [The necessity of medical treatment and custody and the risk of recidivism]

The Defendant, as a second-class disabled person due to autism, committed a crime corresponding to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment as stated in the above criminal facts in the state that he/she lacks capacity to distinguish things and make decisions, and there is a need to receive medical treatment from a medical treatment and custody facility for self-pulmonary disorder, and there is a risk of

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Certificate of origin;

1. Notification of the results of mental appraisal, such as a written opinion, three copies of a certificate of release on admission, a copy of medical record, a certificate of non-prosecution decision, a written judgment, a written decision on transfer

1. Photographs of damaged part of the victim;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury, the choice of fines) and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence and the selection of fines)

1. Mitigation of mental disorders;

Articles 10(2) and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Concurrent Crimes with Punishment Aggravated Punishment Aggravated Punishment Aggravated Punishment Aggravated Punishment) of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Medical treatment and custody;

Determination on the assertion of the accused and his/her defense counsel under Articles 2(1)1 and 12(1) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant, at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, was in a state of mental disorder, etc., and thus has no responsibility. In addition, the Defendant does not have the necessity of medical treatment and custody and the risk of recidivism, and thus, the claim for medical treatment and custody

2. The result of the jury verdict on the assertion that each of the crimes of this case was in a state of mental disorder

○ Not guilty (the case of mental disorder): 2 votes.

○ guilty (applicable to mental disorder) : 5 tickets

3. Results of the jury verdict on the assertion that there is no necessity for medical treatment and custody and the risk of recidivism.

○ Medical Treatment and Custody Order: 7 tickets

○ Dismissal of the application for medical treatment and custody: Reasons for sentencing on the zero list and opinions on sentencing.

1. The scope of punishment by law: Fine not exceeding 7,500,000 won;

2. Determination of sentence: 1,00,000 won (the daily amount converted into a workhouse: 10,000 won), the opinion of the juror [the order of provisional payment] ○ juror: fine of KRW 1,00,000,000;

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant used violence to the victims without any particular reason; (b) the Defendant did not take appropriate measures for the recovery of damage; and (c) the victim did not hedging from the mental impulse suffered from each of the instant crimes; and (d) the investigative agency and the Defendant expressed their intent to punish the Defendant in this court; (b) the Defendant did not focus on the injury suffered by the victim F; (c) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes in a state of mental disorder; and (d) the Defendant and his mother’s wife’s wife’s wife’s wife were very difficult to take into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant.

For the above reasons, this case is judged as ordered through a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes.