beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant (i) was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder at the time of committing the crime.
The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Although the Defendant asserted that at the time of committing the instant crime, he was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder, he did not assert any assertion as to whether the cause causing the instant crime was a mental disorder or drinking.
In light of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined by the court below, such as the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, regardless of the reason at the time of the crime in this case.
It does not seem that there was any or weak state.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's ground of appeal.
B. We examine both the prosecutor of unreasonable sentencing and the defendant's grounds for appeal.
The crime of this case was committed by intrusion upon the victim's residence under the same water method again before two months have passed since the defendant completed a prison life due to the same kind of crime, and the punishment of the unlawful act is not exceptionally applied.
In addition, the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment of about 13 times, including four previous criminal records due to the same crime.
Furthermore, in full view of the fact that the Defendant appears to have not taken any measures for the recovery of the victim’s damage, it is necessary to punish the Defendant with severe penalty corresponding to the criminal liability.
However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided the mistake in depth.
In addition, the defendant seems to have invaded upon the victim's residence in order to avoid the prosecution while on the old.
(2).