beta
Text
The conviction part among the defendant's case of the judgment below shall be reversed.
No. 1, 3, and 4-A of the judgment of the defendant.
(2) Crimes;
Reasons
1. On November 4, 2012, among the facts charged in the instant case, the court below rendered a verdict of innocence on the injury by indecent act, guilty of the remainder of the facts charged, and sentenced an attachment order and a medical treatment order. The defendant and his defense counsel filed an appeal against the guilty part of the judgment below as to the claim for attachment order and the claim for attachment order. The prosecutor filed an appeal against the guilty part and the claim for medical treatment order among the judgment below (the prosecutor stated "the scope of appeal" in the petition of appeal to the effect that the defendant's number was stated in the "the defendant's number was stated in the "the defendant's appeal", but it was stated only in the "the defendant's number was stated in the "the first trial date", and that the part which the court below acquitted was not the defendant's appeal against the acquitted part on the first trial date is separated and confirmed. Ultimately, the part of the judgment below'
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant - (1) and the person who requested an order to attach an electronic device and the person who requested an order to attach an electronic device (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed indecent act by force against the victim Q as stated in the facts constituting a crime in paragraph (3) of the judgment below, but the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the victim’s statement with no credibility at the time, etc.
(2) Since the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, voluntarily surrenders to investigative agencies as to certain crimes, the reduction of self-denunciation pursuant to Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act should be conducted, the lower court did not reduce self-denunciation. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
(3) The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness.