In a case where the Defendant was indicted for murdering, attempted murdering, and causing bodily harm to a 22 person on the ground that he/she caused death and injury, such as murdering knife and knife five knife, etc., by moving gasoline to the second floor emergency stairs after he/she was living in the apartment where he/she was living, and taken shelter from the above floor with the escape of the Party A et al., who was living in the above floor, caused the death and injury of 22 persons, the case holding that the Defendant mitigated the punishment on the ground that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder

The defendant was prosecuted for murder, attempted murder, and injury resulting from 22 persons on the ground that the defendant's moving the gasoline to the second floor emergency stairs, and the escape of the Gap et al. living in the upper floor, etc. was taken in the air with the knife and the knife with the knife knife and the knife knife with five knife, etc.

In light of the various objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s diagnosis at the trial of the above 10-year violent incident, and the Defendant’s statement that “a large number of residents are at a disadvantage to himself/herself,” such as the fact that he/she was judged to have committed a crime under a state of mental disorder and was suspended treatment after being diagnosed as a early injury, and that he/she was at the time of the crime, and the motive, circumstance, etc. of the crime were consistent until the investigation agency, mental appraisal, interview at the time of the crime, and the court, and that he/she was at the above time before the crime such as murder, etc., and caused so, he/she was at the time of the crime, and that he/she was at the time of the crime, such as the Defendant’s damage net and related net symptoms, etc., which appears to be the motive for each crime, and the result of the clinical examination and mental appraisal of the common contents that “the Defendant was at the motive of the crime,” it is reasonable to judge that the Defendant was at the time of the crime of mental disorder and physical disorder, etc.

Articles 10(2), 164(2), 250(1), and 254 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Water change et al. and four others

Attorney Yoon Jong-ju

Changwon District Court Decision 2019Gohap153, 154, 155 decided November 27, 2019

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

The seized knife (No. 1), knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

As to the crime No. 2-A of the case No. 2019Kahap153, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the crime causing bodily injury to the present building, which is related to the crime, on the ground that the crime of causing fire to the present building was absorbed into the crime of causing bodily injury to the present building and the crime of causing fire to the present building, and constitutes a case which does not constitute a separate crime.

As to this, only the defendant appealed, and the prosecutor did not appeal. In such a case, the part not guilty in the reasoning is also transferred to the appellate court along with the guilty part in accordance with the principle of no appeal. However, since the part not guilty in the reasoning has already been abandoned from the object of the attack and defense between the parties, this part cannot be re-determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010, etc.).

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is to be followed, and this court does not make a separate judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The claim 1)

The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes (hereinafter referred to as the “instant crimes”) on April 17, 2019, due to mental illness, such as sternal illness, etc., at the time of the instant crime (hereinafter referred to as “the instant crime”).

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

The punishment (the death penalty, the confiscation) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Determination as to the claim of mental disability

A. Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

1) The defendant's growth process

A) The Defendant (date of birth omitted) was living in Jinju City through Jinju City and Jinju City. The Defendant’s house was very poor from finite to finite, and the Defendant’s house was living in the juvenile reformatory after frequent fighting between his parents around the time of having to go to the elementary school. The Defendant died from the 2002 rock. The Defendant’s middle school was the lower right, and the Defendant’s middle school was desired to go to enter the sports high school, but it was difficult to see family conditions and was given up entering the high school. On December 19, 195, the Defendant was released from the juvenile reformatory after receiving juvenile protective disposition by inhaled juvenile around December 19, 195, at the age of 18.

B) After resolving military service through a defense industry’s work, the Defendant transferred a number of workplaces, such as a motor vehicle maintenance plant, manufacturing plant, large-scale subcontractor, etc. Around 2008, the Defendant engaged in the business of cutting off electronic equipment for a period of three months at the ○○ Electronic Factory, and had a disc scambling so far, and so far, its body is not good. However, the Defendant was not treated as an industrial accident because it did not have been covered by industrial accident insurance at the time. The Defendant was recognized as an industrial accident, such as visiting relevant agencies several times, but was not recognized.

C) Since then, the Defendant, while living together with his mother and her mother and her birth together, was economically dependent on the dynamics, was living in the dynamics for a period of time. The Gyeongnam Provincial Police Agency Scientific Investigation and Scientific Investigation Team considered that the Defendant’s awareness of damage was serious, and since that time, it was presumed that there was a network that “the Gyeongnam Provincial Police Agency’s scientific investigation and scientific investigation circles have been suffering disadvantages, such as that “the company-related persons are suffering from driving away, monitoring, and hindering personal relations, on the wind that is demanded to be recognized as industrial accidents” (hereinafter “original judgment” is omitted, and only the case number is indicated) and that the evidence records (hereinafter “Evidence records” is indicated separately when citing other evidence records of this case) are cited.

(ii) diagnosis of violent incidents and fluoral disease around 2010;

A) Around May 2010, the Defendant believed that he had been able to monitor himself by the company. The Defendant was suffering from the foregoing case, and was given a mental diagnosis at the Medical Treatment and Custody Center around August 2010, and the mental diagnosis was an efficulative mental disorder. At the time, the summary of the mental diagnosis document was damaged due to the actual judgment and the network’s accident. “The awareness of the appraiser is 2) one week, 3) one week, efficiencies, and the fact-finding and the network’s accident contents. It appears that the accident, such as an unrealistic accident, damage network, network, network, etc. seems to have been doubtful. However, it appears that the behavior observation is doubtful, but it appears that it is highly doubtful that the mental disorder at the time of the intelligence examination shows that it constitutes an unstable one of the symptoms (e.g., mental disorder).

B) On August 31, 2010, Jinwon District Court: (a) recognized the Defendant’s mental suffering from mental illness with respect to the foregoing case; and (b) sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and three years of probation due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.).

3) Treatment progress, efforts to adapt to society, etc.

A) The Defendant was put on probation during the period of probation. Around December 15, 2010, the probation office recommended compulsory hospitalization to the Defendant’s guardian. Around December 15, 2010, the Defendant was living together with her mother and her mother. The Defendant’s penal Nonindicted Party 2 had a conflict between her mother and her mother at an investigation agency, and the Defendant’s penal Nonindicted Party 2 had a conflict between her mother and her mother. Ultimately, around January 201, 201, she stated that the relationship between the Defendant and her family was worse upon the birth report of her birth (Evidence record 1,609 page). The Defendant was hospitalized until October 201.

B) After the discharge, the Defendant entered △ High School annexed to △△ High School on March 11, 2012 and graduated from February 14, 2015, and received the results of four to five equal classes among the total 110 students. The Defendant, from March 20, 2012, was in the Central Institute of Equipment for the purpose of acquiring the qualifications for cutting off season, was in the Republic of Korea, and was taking six times at around 2010, but all the following were passed a short time in around 2012.

C) Around October 8, 2012, the Defendant obtained a license to engage in a job to obtain driving, and went to do so again. Since then, the Defendant: (a) engaged in an assistant work for Poclesles; and (b) had revenue of KRW 1,500,000 per month; (c) went beyond the road on July 2013; and (d) was unable to engage in a work due to a recurrence of lusium pains. According to the Defendant’s statement made at the investigative agency Nonindicted 2’s investigation agency around the beginning of 2019, the Defendant was going to go to the Jinju Regional Self-Governing Center; (b) however, the Defendant turned to the Jinju Regional Self-Governing Center around the beginning of 2019; (c) the employees discontinued to go out of the network to go to coffee (Evidence No. 757 of the evidence record). While the Defendant was unable to do so, the Defendant sent a life-on-demanding account of KRW 5,600,00,000.

D) From discharge to July 2016, the Defendant received outpatient medical treatment under the onsite’s diagnosis, such as visiting △△△△ Hospital once a month after discharge and taking medicine prescriptions. The Defendant last suspended medical treatment on July 28, 2016.

4) The defendant's act, etc. after moving the third apartment of Do governor into the third apartment

A) According to the details of receipt of civil petition by an apartment management office, on September 25, 2018, a civil petition was received that “snickly snickly snicked as snickly snicked as snicked on the front of the ▽▽▽▽▽ signs,” and on September 26, 2018, a civil petition was received, stating that “snickly snicked as snicking with garbage in the dedicated elevator 1 and 2 flag” was filed (Evidence No. 1,652 page).

B) On January 17, 2019, around three months prior to committing the instant murder, etc., the Defendant made a reply to the purport that the victim Nonindicted 3 (the victim Nonindicted 3 (the 27-year age), working at the Jinju Regional Self-Governing Center at the Jinju Regional Self-Governing Center (the 207-year age), was a drug to the Defendant, and assault, speak, or control the said victim (the case No. 2019Da154).

C) According to the 112-report data, the Defendant took a disturbance and took verbal abuse (Evidence Records 2,201 pages) on February 28, 2019 when the victim Nonindicted 4, a resident of the ▽▽▽▽▽△△, was present at work (Evidence Records 2,201 pages).

D) According to the 112 Reporting Data, on March 3, 2019, a report was filed on the same effect that any arbitra-gun spreads garbage in front of the ▽▽▽▽△△△△△ on March 3, 2019 (Evidence Records 2,201 pages).

E) On March 10, 2019, around one month prior to committing the instant murder, etc., the Defendant assaulted the victims of drinking by drinking, while taking a hacks with customers before the hacks House (2019No. 155). At the time of the Defendant’s home, there were 2 points of knife as well as knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, and knife.

F) On March 12, 2019, around 19:35, the Defendant: (a) thought that the said victim instigatesd the same resident of Nonindicted Party 4, before the victim Nonindicted Party 4 on March 12, 2019, caused the said victim to have a fluorous and bullying into the Defendant’s house, and fluort the Defendant’s house; and (b) based on the body mixed with the head, portrait, and garbage, etc., on the window of the ▽▽▽▽△△ho-gu and the corridor on the side of the corridor (an offense of March 12, 2019 among the instant case No. 20153).

G) According to the 112 Report Data, when Nonindicted 4 victim Nonindicted 4 was released, the Defendant was able to take care of (Evidence Records 2,201 pages).

H) According to the details of receipt of civil petition by the apartment management office, the following is stated: (a) around April 2, 2019, the Defendant opened a bend on the new wall and (b) the management office opened a bend on the upper floor, stating that “I have become a member of the Military Manpower Office (Evidence No. 1,655 page).”

I) Meanwhile, in relation to the above series of cases, Nonindicted 2 stated in the investigative agency that “In order to force the admission of a student, Nonindicted 2 sought help from the public prosecutor’s office, the public prosecutor’s office, the legal aid corporation, and the Dong office on April 2019, but did not find any particular method and emphasized the promotion of compulsory admission” (Evidence Nos. 1,613).

5) Defendant’s statement concerning the motive of each of the instant crimes

A) On April 17, 2019, at the time of the first police statement related to the crime of murder of this case, the Defendant: “At the time of the crime, the Defendant continued to be disadvantaged socially, was disadvantaged in the company, and was disadvantaged in the process of being treated continuously even after retirement, and became disadvantaged in the process of being treated continuously,” so, the Defendant puts on the caric book in the form of a knife. The Defendant was disadvantaged. There was no solution, and the issue was still being resolved, and the knife is human beings and the knife. There was no problem, so, the knife continued to be solved. There was a lot of 7 stories, such as sexual harassment, fraud, and CCTV, and that there were many other comments, and that knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife k.

B) Since then, in an investigative agency, a interview at the time of mental appraisal, and a court room, the Defendant repeatedly states to the effect that “The Defendant was a group that, prior to 10 years ago, the Defendant caused damage to the Defendant, etc. for the purpose of bullyinging the Defendant, etc., she was related to sexual assault, murder, rape, etc., and that they were related to the State Agriculture Force, and that at the time of Jinju, people who were disadvantaged due to the serious corruption and corruption were able to suffer disadvantages, and all government offices, such as the police station, etc. . After the Defendant moved into the apartment in the Do of Do, the Defendant made a repeated statement to the effect that “after the Defendant transferred the apartment in the Do of Do, the residents are bullyinging the Defendant and destroying the spirit of bullying and impairing the Defendant.”

C) In addition, the Defendant did not think of it as in his own mind, but did not talk about other persons at a disadvantage, and the Defendant consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to this court. In the Defendant’s newspaper, the Defendant made a statement from the Defendant at the trial to the point of view that he was going to go to the elevator or log in an apartment complex. Furthermore, the Defendant made a statement that the Defendant was going to go to the seat of the elevator or log in an apartment complex, even though he stated that he was 5). Moreover, the Defendant made a statement that “if he was to go to the seat of the seat, he would be able to make an appraisal that he would go to the seat of the seat.” Moreover, as seen in the above Section 4, the Defendant made a statement that it was difficult for the part of the Defendant, as the residents, etc. were fluent by spreading the impulse, such as the punishment and scambling.

D) At the time of the police investigation (Evidence No. 726 page) and the Defendant’s examination of the political party, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “In the event of an excessive number of days, she thought that it would be satisfyed.” In the police investigation, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “I think that satisfy would lead to the occurrence of these days.” (Evidence No. 1,232 page).

마) 당심 피고인신문에서 피고인은 “2016년 말경 ☆☆3차아파트 ◎◎◎동 ◁◁◁호로 전입한 직후부터 주변에서 단지 내에 다른 이들을 헐뜯으며 싸움을 붙여대는 사람들이 있다는 이야기들을 자기에게 하여 왔다.”라는 취지로 진술하였다. “☆☆3차 단지 곳곳에 패거리를 지어 사기행각을 벌이고, 아동학대·강간 등의 중범죄를 일삼고, 남의 험담을 퍼뜨리고, 피고인에게 불이익을 주는 등, 각종 문제를 일삼는 사람들이 있다.”라는 내용이었다. 피고인은 특히 “◎◎◎동 ▽▽▽호 주7) 의 경우 범죄자들이 낮밤을 가리지 않고 들락날락거리고, 피고인에게 인상을 쓰고 시비를 걸어오고, 벌레와 벌거지들을 피고인의 집을 향해 뿌리고, 아파트를 불법개조하여 몰래카메라를 설치하고는 피고인을 감시하고 있다.”라는 취지로 진술했다. 피고인은 수사기관에서 “▷▷▷호는 ▽▽▽호와 한 패거리인 범죄자집단이고, ♤♤♤호 남자는 형 공소외 2의 친구로 자기에게 잘해 주는 척을 하면서 뒤에서 욕하고 벌레를 뿌려대는 패거리다.”라는 취지로 진술하였다(증거기록 1,420면). 피고인은 또한 “♡♡♡호 주민은 설날 때 음식을 가져다주었는데, 음식에 병균을 타 쉰 냄새가 났고 그것을 먹는 바람에 토하게 되었다.”라는 취지로 진술했고(증거기록 826면), 이 외에도 다수의 주민들이 패거리를 이루어 여러 불이익을 가한다고 수차례 진술하였다.

6) Details of the crime

가) 피고인이 이 사건 범행에 사용한 도구는 회칼(전체 길이 34cm, 칼날 길이 21cm) 1자루, 장어칼(전체 길이 24cm, 칼날 길이 11cm) 1자루, 그리고 건물을 방화하는 데 사용한 휘발유 등이다. 피고인은 칼 2점을 약 한 달 전 구매한 것으로 보이는데, 피고인은 수사기관에서는 “항상 옆에서 불이익을 주고해서 화가 나서 샀다. 항상 나의 감정을 억압해서 샀다.”라거나 “점점 불이익을 주는 정도가 심해져서 나를 보호하기 위해 샀다.”라는 취지로 진술하였고(증거기록 728, 1865면), 당심 피고인신문 당시에는 “낚시도구로 쓸 겸 보호본능에 의해 필요하여 사두었다.”라는 취지로 진술하였다. 휘발유는 범행이 있던 날인 2019. 4. 17. 00:51경 집에서 3km 정도 떨어진 ●●셀프주유소로 가 구입하고 기름통에 담아 돌아왔는데, 당심 피고인신문 당시 피고인은 “평소에 이용하던 주유소 중 그 시간에도 열 것으로 생각했던 곳에 간 것뿐이다.”라는 취지로 진술하였다.

B) In addition, the Defendant stated in the Defendant’s newspaper at the trial of the political party that “Although there was any desire to sacriffate it,” the Defendant left a match to use it for the necessary purpose, such as Matoba, etc., on the direct cause of the instant crime, such as murder, etc., once, she left the match. Moreover, the Defendant’s statement from the investigative agency to the lower court and the lower court are consistent with the Defendant’s trial on the following grounds: (a) he was sacreeped and sacriffed; (b) he was sacriffed due to the fact that sacriffed in the instant crime; and (c) he was hicking and sacriffed; and (d) he was hicked with the fact that sacriffed in the instant crime.” The Defendant’s statement is consistent from the investigation agency to the lower court.

다) 피고인은 피고인의 집에 불을 지른 후 곧바로 2층 비상계단으로 이동했다. 그리고는 판시 범죄사실과 같이 ▽▽▽호, ▷▷▷호, ♤♤♤호 피해자들을 비롯하여 대부분 자신이 불이익을 주는 패거리라고 진술한 이들에게 살인 또는 살인미수의 범행을 가하였다.

라) 피고인은 범행 상황에 대한 질문에 대하여, “누구에게 칼을 휘둘렀는지 자세히는 모르겠는데, 평소 알고 지내던 사람들이 있었다.”(증거기록 732면), “찌른 사람이 남자인지 여자인지, 누구인지 모르겠다. 그냥 맞닥뜨리는 대로 했다. 화가 계속 치밀어 올랐다.”(증거기록 1076면), “▽▽▽호에 거주하는 여성 2명을 만난 기억이 난다. 계단을 오르락내리락하면서 얄궂게 한 패거리로 불이익을 줬던 사람들을 만났다. 누구를 어떤 순서대로 만났는지는 기억나지 않는다. ▷▷▷호 여성 2명은 잘 기억나지 않는다.”(증거기록 2340면), “범행 중 투항할 무렵부터 이성이 돌아왔다. 화가 났을 때는 물불을 가리지 않고 찔렀고, 화가 좀 가라앉았을 때는 담배를 한 대 피우고 칼을 뽑고 자살을 하려고도 했다.”(당심 피고인신문)라는 취지로 진술하였다.

7) The circumstances after crimes

A) At the time of arrest, the Defendant stated to the effect that, at the time of arrest, the police called blank shot, “I will shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot.” (Evidence Nos. 256 of the evidence record). The Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant was arrested, and the police sent the Defendant to the police station again after shot shot shot shot shot.”

B) Since then, the Defendant recognized all criminal facts in the investigative agency and the court, and claimed mitigation due to mental or physical illness, while claiming to himself/herself. Accordingly, there is no intention to treat the victims, such as taking medicine. For the victims' thoughts, the Defendant stated that “I would like to do so up to his/her own mind. I would like to do so. I would like to do so. I would like to do so even if I would like to do so. I would like to do so.” (Evidence 733 of the evidence record), and “I would not have to accept and refuse to accept it. I would like to accept it. I would not have to go back from time to time. I think, at that time, I think it is difficult in the Defendant’s examination of the political party. However, I would like to say that we would not have to go against their acts, such as making a statement to the effect that “I would have been in a situation subsequent to the disadvantage although I made efforts.”

8) Results, etc. of clinical psychology assessment, mental assessment, etc.

A) Results of clinical psychology analysis by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office of Scientific Investigation Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office

(1) On April 19 through 30, 2019, the Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office had conducted a clinical examination conducted by the JA branch of the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office. The requested matters were the physical and mental condition through an objective clinical examination, such as the reason for non-discriminatory attack against residents, the comprehensive judgment on the grounds for mental and physical illness and medical records, the Defendant’s intelligence, planned and objective-oriented thinking ability, whether an accident occurred, the level of mental disorder, the risk of recidivism and the need for treatment.

(2) The main contents of the clinical Trial Statement prepared by the above psychological analysis officers on May 3, 2019 are as follows.

The general condition of inspection of crimes included in the main text : Merely, the victims of the incident were not able to engage in a lot of remarks at a rapid rate. The actual condition of the incident, i.e., e., unexploited and unexploited one’s own risk. However, the actual condition of the incident, i.e., unexploited one’s own risk, i., e., unexploited one’s own risk. However, the Defendant did not seem to have been able to respond to an unexploited and unexploited one’s own risk, i.e., unexploited one’s own risk. However, the Defendant’s own risk of destruction, i.e., unexploited one’s own risk, and the other’s own risk of destruction. However, there were no doubts or unexploited one’s own risk of injury, i.e., unexpled one’s own risk.

Note 8) Related Nets

Note 9) Manis Certificate

B) Results of the mental assessment of the Medical Treatment and Custody Office

(1) The Medical Treatment and Custody Office, upon receiving a request from the Jind District Prosecutors' Office to conduct a mental appraisal of the Defendant from the Jind District Prosecutors' Office, was admitted to the ward of the Medical Treatment and Custody Office from May 10, 2019 to July 2, 2019, and conducted an appraisal by referring to the observation of behavior during the period of appraisal through a thorough mental interview, mental condition examination, psychological examination, two parts and chest X-ray examination, clinical pathology examination, and nursing record examination.

(2) The main contents of a mental appraisal document prepared on July 2, 2019 by the Medical Treatment and Custody Office are as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 ● 의식과 지남력: 의식은 명료하며, 지남력도 보존되었음. ● 감정상태: 입소 시 매우 화가 난 정동을 보였고, 불안정한 감정상태로 충동적임. ● 사고과정 및 내용: 사고과정은 지리멸렬하고 사고의 이완과 탈선을 보이며, 사고내용상 피해망상(예전에 근무했던 공장을 운영한 기업체, 진주시청 공무원, 거주하는 아파트 단지 내 주민들 특히 ▽▽▽호, ▷▷▷호, ♤♤♤호, ♡♡♡호 거주민들이 자신에게 계속 불이익을 주고 감시하면서 사기, 폭행, 강간, 아동학대 등의 범죄를 했다고 함)과 관계망상(경찰서, 검찰 직원들, 치료감호소 감정의사, 뉴스를 방송하는 언론매체들이 가해자들과 결탁되어 피고인에게 적절한 조치를 해주지 않고 확인되지 않는 사건 내용을 방송한다고 함)을 보임. ● 지각: 환청을 호소하지는 않으나 의심됨. ● 지능: IQ 78로 경계선 수준에 해당함. ● 판단력과 병식: 현실 판단력이 저하되어 있으며, 병식(주10)은 결여됨. ● 임상심리검사 결과: 현재 지적능력(K-WAIS-IV)은 경계선 수준에 해당되었다. 피해망상에 해당되는 내용으로 사고가 전개되고 있으며, 사고의 과정에서 논리적으로 연결이 매우 이완되어 있고 자폐적인 논리에 의해 현실을 왜곡해 판단하고 있어, 현실 검증력이 손상된 상태이다. 피해망상과 관련하여 개연성이 없어 보이는 두 대상을 연결하여 자신의 의심과 불신을 강화시키고, 타인에 대한 불신과 상황적인 편집증적 신념을 강화하는 데 집중을 하나, 타인과의 실제 접촉이나 다른 주제나 현실에 대해서는 무관심하다. ● 감정 결과 - 진단: 조현병(정신분열병) - 설명: 조현병(정신분열병)이란 뇌의 기질적인 이상은 없는 상태에서 사고, 정동, 지각, 행동 등 인격의 여러 측면에 장애를 초래하는 뇌 기능장애로 망상, 환각, 와해된 언어, 심하게 와해된 행동이나 긴장증적 행동, 음성증상, 즉 정서적 둔마, 무논리증, 무욕증 등의 증상을 보임. ● 형사책임능력에 대한 정신의학적 의견: 피고인의 정신과적 진단은 조현병(정신분열병)이며 본소 입소 당시 정신상태는 피해망상 및 관계망상, 지리멸렬한 사고 및 언어, 불안정한 감정, 현실 판단력의 저하, 충동조절능력의 저하, 병식 결여 등의 정신증상들을 보였으며, 본 사건 범행 당시에도 입소 시 정신상태와 비슷한 정신증상들을 보였으리라 추정되며 사물변별능력과 의사결정능력이 저하된, 즉 심신미약 상태에 있었을 것으로 사료됨.

Note 10) Sick

C) Nonindicted 5 in a psychiatrist

(1) On August 27, 2019, Nonindicted 5, a psychiatrist of the Jinwon District Prosecutors’ Office, submitted a response to the advice on whether it is possible to make a judgment of mental or physical disability, etc. medically, despite the existence of “accompetence, capacity to distinguish things, and capacity to distinguish things,” of the patient of the Jintern, who is a medical adviser of the Jinwon Prosecutors’ Office.

(2) The main contents of the above reply are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 ● 조현병은 단일한 질환이 아니라 다양한 원인에 의하여 발생하는 질병군이다. 조현병은 1) ‘망상, 환각, 와해된 언어, 심하게 와해된 또는 긴장증적 행동, 음성증상’의 5개 중 2개 또는 그 이상이 있고, 그 각각이 1개월의 기간(또는 성공적으로 치료되었을 경우 그 이하) 중 의미 있는 기간 동안 존재하며, 최소한 위 증상 중 하나는 ‘망상, 환각, 와해된 언어’에 해당하고, 2) 장애가 발생한 이후로 상당 기간 동안 일, 대인관계, 자기 돌봄 등과 같은 영역 가운데 하나 또는 그 이상에서의 기능 수준이 발병 이전에 성취한 수준보다 현저히 낮으며, 3) 질병의 계속적인 징후가 최소 6개월 이상일 때 진단된다. ● 조현병 환자의 현실 검증력은 정신병적 증상의 심한 정도에 따라 차이가 있을 수 있다. 조현병 환자 전체를 일반화하여 평가할 수 없다. ● 조현병 환자의 일상적 기능 정도에 따라 정기적으로 경륜 도박을 하거나 소셜댄스 수업, 미용강좌 수강을 할 수도 있다. ● 조현병 환자의 경우 정신과적 증상(관계망상, 피해망상, 탈선적 사고)이 심하다면 의학적인 심신미약 판정을 할 수 있다. 즉, 망상을 병으로 인식하지 못하고 망상에 의해 감정표현이나 폭력을 행한 것을 현실 판단력의 저하로 보고, 이렇게 현실 판단력 및 현실 검증력(현실과 비현실을 구분하는 것)이 저하된 것을 의사결정능력이 미약한 것으로 볼 수 있다. 망상적 사고로 인해 아파트 CCTV를 이웃 사람들이 피고인을 감시하려고 설치했다고 믿은 것을 보면 사물변별능력, 즉 그 원래의 목적을 변별하는 능력이 저하되었다고 볼 수 있다. ● 편집(망상)적이면서 지능이 우수한 환자들은 그들의 망상에 기반하여 계획적인 공격행동을 하고, 낮은 지능이면 반응적 공격행동을 한다는 논문이 있다. ● 가족기능 및 지역사회 적응 등이 불량한 경우 역시 폭력행동의 위험성이 증가한다. ● 공주치료감호소는 ‘환청을 호소하지 않으나 의심됨’이라고 기술한 반면, 법과학분석과는 ‘와해된 지각의 장애(환청, 환촉 등)는 뚜렷하게 시사되지 않음’이라고 기술했다. 환청을 비롯한 환각은 밖으로 표현되는 것이 아니므로 당사자가 증상이 없다고 말하면 그 여부를 알 수 없고, 망상의 행태나 말이나 행동에서 추정할 뿐이다. 공주치료감호소는 피고인이 ‘많은 사람들이 짜고 나를 욕하고 험담하며 해코지한다’는 내용 등에서 환청의 가능성을 본 것으로 생각되고, 임상에서도 흔히 이러한 경우 환청의 가능성을 염두에 둔다. ● 조현병은 적절한 치료를 받는다면, 치료되거나 호전될 수 있다.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act provides, “The act of a person who, because of mental disorder, has no ability to discern things or make decisions shall not be punishable.” Article 10(2) of the same Act provides, “The act of a person who, due to mental disorder, lacks the ability to discern things due to mental disorder, may be mitigated.” The mental disorder stipulated in this context requires psychological factors other than mental disorder such as mental disorder, such as mental disorder, mental drugs, or abnormal mental condition, that the ability to distinguish things and to control actions accordingly are reduced or decreased. Thus, even though a person with mental disorder is a person with mental disorder at the time of the crime, if he/she had normal ability to distinguish things or control actions at the time of the crime, such mental disorder cannot be deemed to be a mental disorder. However, in the case of mental disorder such as mental disorder, even if he/she appears to be the same as the normal person in the process of committing the crime, it is often possible to restrain the impulse of the crime, and if he/she was unable to perform the act independently due to mental disorder or mental disorder.

2) Determination on the instant case

A) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant returned to the instant case, and the following circumstances revealed by the facts recognized as seen earlier are comprehensively taking account of the background, means, and attitude of the Defendant before and after the commission of each of the instant crimes. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant was suffering from the mental disability of the tide at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was judged to have been in the state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to the damage network, related network, etc. caused by the mental disorder, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mental disability is with

(1) Around August 2010, the Defendant was diagnosed as Maternal Disease, and was determined to have committed a crime under a state of mental or physical disability at the time. The Defendant was hospitalized in a hospital around January 1, 201 to October 201, received treatment, and received outpatient treatment from the hospital until July 28, 2016, and did not undergo outpatient treatment any longer after being treated on July 28, 2016.

(2) According to the clinical Review conducted by the Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office with respect to the Defendant, the relationship between the Defendant and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office determines that “the damage net is a very publicly announced level, and the access ability or type of illness is significantly lacking,” and the relationship between the neighbor and the people thought that he/she is doubtful about the surrounding people and suffered damage, such as “osting them as an organization,” and “any people use and monitor them.”

(3) 피고인에 대하여 치료감호소가 실시한 정신감정 결과에 의하면, ‘피고인의 사고과정은 지리멸렬하고 사고의 이완과 탈선을 보이며, 사고내용상 피해망상(예전에 근무했던 공장을 운영한 기업체, 진주시청 공무원, 거주하는 아파트 단지 내 주민들, 특히 ▽▽▽호, ▷▷▷호, ♤♤♤호, ♡♡♡호 거주민들이 자신에게 계속 불이익을 주고 감시하면서 사기, 폭행, 강간, 아동학대 등의 범죄를 했다고 함)과 관계망상(경찰서, 검찰 직원들, 치료감호소 감정의사, 뉴스를 방송하는 언론매체들이 가해자들과 결탁되어 피고인에게 적절한 조치를 해주지 않고 확인되지 않는 사건 내용을 방송한다고 함)을 보인다’고 하며, 결론적으로 ‘조현병(정신분열병)으로 진단되고, 형사책임능력에 대하여는 범행 당시 및 현재 사물변별능력과 의사결정능력이 저하된 심신미약 상태에 있었을 것으로 사료된다’는 의견이다.

(4) With respect to the motive of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant, from the investigative agency to the court of trial, submitted the statement of grounds of appeal, etc. repeatedly stating that “The Defendant is a group that causes bullying and damage to the Defendant, all the police stations and government offices in Jinju-si are fright, and even in the apartment of △△ apartment, the Defendant was rashing and destroying the Defendant by linking him, and in the future, he could have suffered extreme damage from them. In particular, the new wall of the instant crime, such as murder, etc., which was committed by the murder of this case, is considered to be due to the fact that the victim was unsatisfed from the locking, the principal offender in the ▽▽△△△△ group, who was the principal offender in the group of the instant crime, and repeatedly stating that it is difficult to view that the Defendant had made an objective motive for or statement to the effect that he did not have any favorable motive to commit the instant crime, such as murder of this case, and that the Defendant had no objective motive to commit the instant crime, such as murder, etc.

(5) The prosecutor asserts that the defendant was not in a state of mental disability at the time of each of the instant crimes in light of the following: (a) there is doubt about the credibility of the appraisal result of the Medical Treatment and Custody Center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody center’s medical treatment and custody report.

However, in light of the fact that Nonindicted 1 of the lower court, the chief of the medical service center, testified to the effect that “The content of the investigation records necessary for appraisal” was confirmed, several opinions were examined in the medical service center, and the medical service center does not provide different opinions for each medical specialist, and in the case of receiving attention as stated in the instant case, he cannot be deemed to have credibility of the medical service center’s appraisal solely on the grounds that the prosecutor asserted that “I will live together with the consultation.” In addition, the gist of the results of the clinical examination and mental appraisal as seen earlier is that “I do not have any problem such as recognition ability, memory, and expression ability against the Defendant, but the judgment ability and thinking were damaged, and the Defendant’s network was motive for committing the crime,” and that the witness 1 of the lower court presented opinions of mental disability, “The examination and treatment center’s overall examination results and psychological ability of the Defendant did not necessarily appear to have any problem similar to each of the instant clinical examination results and clinical examination results.”

(6) The prosecutor asserts that the defendant was not in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of committing the crime because the defendant was thoroughly planned in view of the fact that the defendant selected the target of the crime in advance, planned the method of the crime in advance, prepared the criminal implements to capture the opportunity to commit the crime, strawing the victim who did not recognize as the perpetrator, strawing the target of the crime, and distinguished the target at the time of the crime. Based on the above recognized facts, the defendant prepared and planned to commit the crime such as fire-prevention or murder, etc. Based on the above facts, the defendant was waiting to commit the crime, which is a passage where the victim takes shelter after fire prevention, and the attack was committed mainly by the victim who thought as the perpetrator, while the victim who did not recognize as the perpetrator was not aware of the victim, the defendant could not be ruled out from the point of view that he did not have any possibility of attack or attack the victim at the time of the crime. However, it is difficult to say that the defendant did not have any possibility to defend himself from the point of time of the crime.

(7) 검사는 또한 피고인의 범행 전후 행동, 즉 소셜댄스를 수강하거나 경륜장에서 경륜 도박을 한 점, 범행 당시 추적을 회피하기 위하여 집에서 3km나 떨어진 셀프주유소를 이용한 점 등을 보면 피고인의 인지능력과 판단력이 일반인과 동일하였다는 취지로 주장한다. 그러나 ① 치료감호소 의료부장인 원심 증인 공소외 1은 “조현병 환자라고 해서 반드시 인지기능이 손상되는 것은 아니어서 무엇을 배우거나 할 수 없는 것이 아니고, 판단력에 손상이 있는 것이지 완전히 결여된 것은 아니다.”라고 하면서, “피해망상을 가지고 어떤 행동을 하는 것과 인지능력을 가지고 어떤 행동을 하는 것은 별개의 문제이다. 이는 조현병 환자도 경륜 도박, 소셜댄스 수업, 미용강좌 수강을 할 수 있다는 정신과 전문의 공소외 5의 회신과 같은 취지이다.”라는 취지로 증언한 점(공판기록 308면), ② 피고인은 당시 자신이 자주 이용하던 주유소 중에서 열었을 것이라고 생각한 주유소에 갔을 뿐이라고 진술하고 있고, 실제로 당시 새벽 1시가 넘은 시각이었으며, 피고인은 셀프주유소를 이용하다가 기계가 잘 작동하지 않자 직원의 도움을 요청하였던 것(증거기록 776면) 등에 비추어 주유소에 갈 때부터 추적을 회피하기 좋다는 생각까지 했다고 보기 어려운 점 등을 종합하면, 검사의 위 주장도 받아들일 수 없다.

(8) Lastly, the prosecutor asserts that the defendant is not a mental state even without any reflection, but the defendant is not a mental state. However, the testimony of the non-indicted 1 of the witness of the court below, which stated that, although the five murders and 22 victims made up of the 22 victims did not properly recognize the seriousness of the crime, it appears that the defendant's mental state cannot be said that the defendant's mental state is identical to the general public due to the defendant's attitude that did not properly recognize the seriousness of the crime, and that the defendant's mental state is not the same as the general public, and the victim's mental state is concentrated only on the net world, and it does not want to have any interest and to know about the real situation. In particular, in the damage network, all interest are concentrated on what threat is in the relation with the perpetrator and the principal in the future. The defendant also is understood to such purport.

B) Sub-decisions

Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 15982, Dec. 18, 2018; “The act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder may be mitigated,” which provides that the punishment may be mitigated voluntarily as to the act of a person with mental disorder, so long as the defendant is judged to have committed each of the crimes in this case in a state of mental disorder as seen earlier, it is reasonable to apply the statutory mitigation provision under the Criminal Act to the defendant, as long as the defendant is judged to have committed the crime in this case in a state of mental disorder. Therefore, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which is a statutory mitigation provision, is not applicable to the defendant at the time of committing the crime in this case, and thus, Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which is a statutory mitigation provision, is not applicable to the defendant at the time of committing the crime in this case, and the

4. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's argument of mental disability is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the argument of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts charged by this court and the evidence thereof are as follows, except for the addition of "the defendant has committed each of the following crimes under the condition that the defendant lacks the ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to the early illness," and therefore, it is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of homicide), Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of attempted homicide), the first sentence of Article 164(2) and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of causing bodily harm to the present building), Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of each Criminal Act, Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of special injury), Article 366 of each Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of each Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence), Articles 261 and 260(1) of each Criminal

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed for the crime of bodily injury resulting from fire to the present building)

1. Selection of punishment;

○ Crimes of homicide and homicide: Selection of death penalty

○ Crimes against Injury to the present building: Imprisonment for a definite term;

○ Crimes of causing property damage, assault, and special assault: Selection of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Mitigation of mental illness;

○ Articles 10(2) and 55(1)1 of each Criminal Act (the commission of murder and attempted murder: the commission of a person who commits suicide and attempted murder: the commission of a person who commits a crime for life with a mental disability after mitigation

○ Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the main building, fire prevention, injury to property, damage to property, violence, and special violence)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 1, and Article 50 (Punishment as life imprisonment for the murder of a victim non-indicted 7 who has the largest punishment and punishment for the murder, and no other punishment shall be imposed)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Scope of legal applicable sentences: life imprisonment;

1. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria (homicide and attempted murder)

【Determination of Punishment】 [Type 5] Murder upon Emphal Deaths

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Mitigation elements: mental disorders (no one shall be responsible);

- Aggravations: planned murder crimes, victims vulnerable to crimes, cruel methods

[Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations] Special Priority Area, Life imprisonment or More

1. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for life;

The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes while lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the instant crime. In the event of the murder of this case, the Defendant was able to kill Nonindicted Party 1 on the victim’s face and to complete the treatment of him/her, and then transferred to the implementation of the instant crime. The Defendant killed Nonindicted Party 1’s face on the day of the instant crime. The Defendant continued to kill Nonindicted Party 1 by moving gasoline to the second floor of the instant crime, and then murder Nonindicted Party 1’s knife and knife Nonindicted Party 1’s knife and knife Nonindicted Party 1’s knife and knife Nonindicted Party 1’s knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife and knife 8’s knife.

In light of the fact that human life is the highest legal interest and the most dignity value protected by the law of our society, and the act of infringing on it is an absolute and uncomfortable serious crime regardless of its reasons. Furthermore, the crime of murder of this case, etc. of this case is cruel and harsh, and the result of the crime is too serious and harsh, and the defendant does not make efforts to recover the victims' damage, and does not seem to have such intent, and the defendant does not seem to have an attitude against the truth while recognizing each of the crimes of this case, the risk of repeating a crime is very high, since there is no medical treatment for the current illness, and the victims and their bereaved families are suffering from extreme pain and wanting to be punished against the defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, it is recognized that there are circumstances that permanently isolate the defendant from society, as shown in the judgment of the court below.

However, as determined in paragraph (3) above, if the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case in the state of changing things or lacking the ability to make a decision due to a man-made illness, and the defendant's family members made efforts to hospitalize the defendant, but did not find any specific method despite having failed to take appropriate measures against the defendant, it seems that our society is responsible for this gap. The death penalty is extremely exceptional punishment, considering that it is a very cold flick punishment that deprives human life of himself/herself of it, which is extremely exceptional punishment, the sentence of death penalty should be allowed only where there is an objective circumstance that can be justified in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5785, Aug. 27, 2015, etc.). It should be considered that the punishment of death penalty is based on the presumption that each of the crimes of this case in the state of mental and physical disorder is responsible for the crime of this case, such as the punishment of death penalty.

Therefore, even though it seems necessary to permanently isolate Defendant from society, it is difficult to view that it is reasonable to impose the Defendant a death penalty on the part of Defendant on the sole responsibility of Defendant. Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, which was amended and enforced on December 18, 2018 by Act No. 15982, stating that “the act of a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder, may reduce the punishment,” thereby voluntarily reducing the punishment for the act of a person with mental disorder, but it is reasonable to apply the statutory mitigation provision under the Criminal Act to the Defendant for life.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, the motive and background leading up to each of the instant crimes, the means and methods of committing the crimes, and the circumstances after committing the crimes, all of the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings of the instant case, and the scope of the above sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines, the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)

(1) Although the Defendant was in a body in the column of “mental disorder” in the statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant did not state the content thereof, and stated on the date for pleading in the trial as the counsel’s assertion of mental and physical disability, as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

Note 2) The phrase “an obvious doubt” means that “a state in which an external stimulious response may be made with respect to the external stimulity.” It is a separate view that “an awareness is clear” and “a daily life may be normal” (the testimony of Nonindicted 1, the first witness, and the trial record 286 pages).

Note 3) The male forces talk with a mental condition that enables people to recognize time, place, and person. The male forces are not the area of judgment but the area of judgment (the testimony of Non-Indicted 1 of the original witness and the trial record 287 pages).

4) At the time of committing the instant murder, etc., it was indicated that the Defendant additionally purchased Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the knife two points (No. 1 and 2) used as a tool for committing the instant crime.

Note 5) The part stating that a refund office is doubtful is due to the fact that other people talk about the result of the mental appraisal of the Medical Treatment and Custody Center.

Note 6) The term “appraisal” refers to a phenomenon in which the body of a defendant is less unstable than that of the defendant, and the defendant stated that the failure is so adjusted as above by any special method teaching the religious group (the Defendant’s newspaper).

7) Since the Defendant was residing in Do governor Do governor, it constitutes the Defendant’s immediate upper house.

Note 8) Without confirmation or basis, a subjective trend or network that another person’s horses and actions are involved in him/her, it is easy to develop mainly into a mental symptoms such as a damaged net.

9) The process of the accident leads to a phenomenon leading to the conclusion that is ultimately aimed at bypassing a number of incidental issues, by failing to distinguish alcoholic beverages from non- alcoholic beverages during the course of the accident.

Note 10) Recognizing that he is a patient suffering from his disease.

11) Although the sentencing guidelines have been set for other crimes, the sentencing guidelines for remaining crimes are not additionally examined, inasmuch as the scope of recommending murder and attempted murder is death penalty or imprisonment for life. However, in determining sentence, the sentencing guidelines should be fully taken into account the circumstances of the remaining crimes.