beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of preventing the instant crime, the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak due to the shock disorder, etc.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a 3 years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 10 hours of confiscation (No. 1), and 5 years of order of disclosure or notification) is too unreasonable.
(c)
There are special circumstances to prevent the accused from disclosing or notifying personal information.
2. Determination
A. The phenomenon where a person commits a crime due to his/her failure to suppress his/her impulse to judge his/her mental disorder is likely to be found even at all times to the normal person. Barring special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a person who has such character defect requires an act that cannot be expected to restrain his/her impulse and to demand compliance with the law, barring special circumstances, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defect, such as a disorder, does not constitute a mental disorder, which is the reason for the reduction or exemption of punishment, as a matter of principle.
However, even if a defect of the same nature as a shock disorder is so serious that it can be evaluated to be equal to a person with mental disorder within its original meaning, the crime resulting therefrom shall be deemed a crime caused by mental disorder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do1541, May 24, 2002; 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009; 2010Do14512, Feb. 10, 201). According to the records of this case, the defendant has a medical ability to receive a mental treatment before the instant case, and the defendant has a suspicion and congested about women, and has a tendency to be excessively distort with adults, but it is recognized that the distortion of adults has been dynamic, and the mental disorder and the mental disorder of the defendant have not been discovered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do967, Feb. 26, 2009).