Whether mitigation of punishment due to mental or physical disorder can be made in case where a traffic accident is caused by driving after drinking.

According to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Code, "the preceding two paragraphs shall not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person's mental and physical disorder." Thus, if the defendant caused a traffic accident by driving his/her vehicle after drinking it after drinking it after drinking it, it constitutes a case where he/she predicted the risk that it may cause a traffic accident when drinking it, and thus, the punishment for mental and physical disorder cannot be mitigated due to mental and physical disorder.

Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Do400 decided Apr. 30, 1968 (No. 16~50) 92Do99 decided Jul. 28, 1992 (Gong192, 2698)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-chul

Daejeon High Court Decision 93No137 delivered on July 30, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

In light of the records, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty based on the evidence of this time is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence, the violation of the rules of evidence, the mental or physical disorder, or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criminal intent of escape after the accident.

The court below cannot be deemed as a violation of the rules of evidence, on the ground that the preparation of evidence and the acknowledgement of facts are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, which is a fact-finding court, and that the court below believed other evidence unfavorable to the defendant without beliefing the evidence favorable

The issue is that the Defendant, at the time of the instant traffic accident, was not aware of the fact that he had been under the influence of alcohol and had injured persons or escaped from the country of the traffic accident, and thus, the Defendant was not guilty. However, the lower court recognized that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant accident, but did not have the ability to discern things and make decisions. The lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

In addition, the court below asserts that the defendant's failure to reduce mental and physical disability is illegal, but according to Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act, "the preceding two provisions shall not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a mental and physical disorder as a person". Thus, if the defendant causes a traffic accident in this case by driving his vehicle and drinking it after drinking it at a drinking house, as decided by the court below, the defendant is deemed to have caused a traffic accident by his own mental and physical disorder while predicting the risk that he may cause a traffic accident in drinking, and therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is just and acceptable, and we cannot accept the argument.

In addition, even if the operating speed of the vehicle at the time of the accident and the accident differs from the time of the original adjudication, it is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)