logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2013.09.27 2013노151
존속살해
Text

The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

An applicant for medical treatment and custody.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the Appellant for Medical Treatment and Custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Appellant for Medical Treatment and Custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) were in the state of mental disorder due to the sternal illness at the time of committing the instant crime. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (10 years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act (A) is that mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act, other than mental disorder, such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, requires that mental disorder caused by psychological factors, which lacks or reduces the ability to distinguish things from right and control action accordingly. Thus, even though a person with mental disorder is a person with mental disorder, if he/she had the ability to discern things from right or control action at the time of committing the crime, he/she cannot be deemed mental disorder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7900, Feb. 8, 2007). Determination on the existence and degree of mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act does not necessarily need to be bound by a professional appraiser’s opinion as a legal judgment. The type and degree of mental disorder, motive and reason for committing the crime, circumstance and attitude of the crime, volume and degree of the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, mental disorder before and its occurrence in court.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do581, May 13, 1994). Following the premise, the Defendant’s symptoms, such as the exchange administration, religious circumstances, and water surface disorders, which are inconsistent with the situation, around January 2010 and June 2010, are hospitals D.

arrow