beta
Text
The judgment below
All parts against Defendant B and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
B Imprisonment with prison labor for five years, Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s assertion of mental and physical weakness has committed each of the instant crimes under the condition that Defendant A could not control and coordinate his own appraisal and actions due to mental illness, and thus, Defendant A ought to be mitigated from his mental and physical weakness.
B. In the lower court’s argument that the Defendants’ sentencing was unfair, the sentence imposed on each of the Defendants (Defendant A: 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment; Defendant B: 7 years of imprisonment; Defendant C’s completion of a sexual assault treatment program; Defendant C: five years of imprisonment; Defendant C’s completion of a sexual assault treatment program; Defendant D’s imprisonment for 40 hours; and Defendant D’s imprisonment for 4 years) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the appellate court as to the Defendant A’s assertion of mental and physical weakness, all of the circumstances acknowledged in the “2. Determination” in the judgment of the lower court not exceeding 13 pages of the judgment, are just and acceptable, and the following facts can be recognized additionally.
Defendant
B Before August 13, 2017, there were several times of drinking water exemption and anti-competitive disorder drugs, but at the time of committing the crime of causing confinement in the middle of August 13, 2017, the drug was not in food.
Defendant
A was in a situation where it was necessary to frequently take off the shock disorder or the yellow disorder before and after the crime of the bodily injury caused by confinement.
In addition, it is not visible that it was actually impossible to control it due to shock disorder, yellow disorder, etc. at the time of the crime of causing bodily injury by confinement.
Rather, Defendant A, together with Defendant B, failed to have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the geological due to a cigaretteing, etc. of the victimized person.
There are no specific circumstances to suspect.
In light of these circumstances, Defendant A had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the crimes in this case.
I seem to appear.