The case holding that a mental illness was in a mental condition;

Since May 197, the symptoms revealed to the effect of the defendant. However, from around December 1980 to around December 12, 1980, the transfer symptoms again appeared, and his mother was fed by booming her booming from January 27, 1981. It is recognized that he was unable to distinguish the symptoms from the symptoms of the defendant, and that he was bound by the knife without reason to knife the knife with the knife without the reason, and that he was bound by the knife knife without the reason that he was snife of the defendant's knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court (Gohap 81, 57, 81, 13)

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination on the appeal against the part of the defendant's case

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the defendant correctly memorys the facts of the crime from the police to the court of the original trial, and that the defendant made the statement at the police and the court of the original trial in the police and the court of the original trial in order to make the statement about the non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 4 in the preparation of the handling of affairs by the judicial police officers. However, even though the defendant lacks the ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to a small mental fission at the time of the crime in this case, the court below violated the rules of evidence and recognized that the defendant did not have the said ability and acquitted the defendant. The judgment of the court below is erroneous

Therefore, considering the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s statement at the court below’s 6th session of the crime, the attitude of his statement, and the conduct in the court, etc. on the basis of the evidence of each of the court below, the Defendant was not guilty of the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder since he was married to Nonindicted 5 before five years in the crime of this case, and Nonindicted 5 went out only one year in marriage; (b) he was found to have no mental and physical disorder from around May 197, 197; (c) the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder was found to have no mental capacity to find out the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder at the time of the crime of this case; and (d) the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder was found to have no mental capacity to find out the Defendant’s mental disorder at the time of the crime of this case; and (d) the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder was no longer found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have no mental condition of the Defendant’s 1stur.

2. Determination on the appeal on the part of the custody claim

According to the records, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment below on July 27, 1981. The appeal is illegal because there is no benefit of appeal, but even if the appeal is lawful pursuant to Article 20 (8) of the Social Protection Act, the prosecutor shall not be found to have any reason for ex officio investigation even if he was notified of receipt of the records of trial from the party members on October 12 of the same year, and even if he did not submit the statement of reasons for appeal within 20 days thereafter, even if he received the notification of receipt of the records of trial from the party members, and it is evident that the petition of appeal does not contain any reason for appeal, so the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Articles 361-4 (1) and 361-3 (1) of

3. It is so decided as per Disposition for more than one reason.

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge) and senior police officers;