beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he could not memory the instant crime at all, but the lower court omitted the mitigation of liability due to mental disorder.
B. Although the Defendant was unable to memory the instant crime, it is against all the recognition of the instant crime in light of witness’s statement and reflects on it, and the health of the Defendant is not good, such as having physical disability due to the verteb and heavy salves. In light of such circumstances, the punishment (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, sent ten minutes of the police officer’s inquiry who received 112 reports and sent out, sent 10 minutes of tobacco smoke to the police officer, and took the view that she would be able to do so. The fact that the police officer sent a warning and recorded her defect (the nine pages of the evidence record), and on April 18, 2013, on April 19, 2014, the police officer arrested him as a flagrant offender at around 1 hour after being arrested as a flagrant offender and around 00:31, 2014, the Defendant responded to the fact that “a police officer’s right to remain silent” was “a right to remain silent” (the inner evidence record 14 below).
In light of the fact that the Defendant did not have any particular problem in communication with police officers at the time of committing the instant crime or immediately after the crime, and that the Defendant’s intent was clearly expressed, and that there was no difficulty in gathering the body, it is not determined that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, even if he was under the influence of alcohol.
The defendant's mental disorder is without merit.
B. Even if the Defendant’s health status is not good, as alleged by the Defendant, determination of unreasonable sentencing is appropriate to the victim.