beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant asserts that the judgment of the lower court, which judged otherwise, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder, because the Defendant committed the instant crime under the condition that he/she was unable to discern things or make a decision under the influence of alcohol due to his/her lack of capacity to discern things or make a decision.
B. The defendant and the prosecutor asserts that the sentencing of the court below (ten months of imprisonment) is too heavy or unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the background, process, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime was committed, etc. as revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant had drinking at the time of the instant crime, but it does not seem that the Defendant had lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.
B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s assertion on unfair sentencing is an extraordinary circumstance favorable to the Defendant, such as: (a) the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the crime, such as assaulting the police officer, etc. who flaged and dispatched the plaque at home without any justifiable reason; (b) the Defendant’s obstruction of business and force of performing official duties at least 17 times; and (c) his previous offense was committed at least seven times; and (d) in particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated offense; and (c) there is no particular effort to recover damage; and (d) on the other hand, the victim’s degree of damage is not very serious; and (e) the Defendant’
In full view of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence, as well as the aforementioned flexible and unsound circumstances, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is adequate.