Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for thirty years.
In 2014, it is necessary to keep the seized handle from the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the person subject to a request for an attachment order, and the person subject to a request for a probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”), were not aware of the victim at all, and there was no fact that the Defendant murdered or destroyed the victim’s body, or used the victim’s credit card theft. A motor vehicle under the name of the Defendant was not driven for a long time, the Defendant was not a person taken in CCTV, and the name of the Defendant in mobile phones and the printing site was stolen. 2) Even if the Defendant committed a crime even if he was guilty of a mental disorder, it is a crime under the state of mental disorder due to the Defendant’s mental disorder.
3) The lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (30 years of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.
B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too unfortunate and unfair.
2. Determination of the accused case
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the part of the facts charged regarding the Defendant’s ex officio, “a prosecutor abandons a bags for travel containing the upper half of the victim’s body as of May 29, 2014, at around 23:56, the part of the facts charged regarding the destruction of the body of this case at the trial of the Party, and the part of the facts charged regarding the abandonment of the body of this case, “a prosecutor abandons a bags for travel containing the upper half of the victim’s body at around 15, 649, 15:56, May 30, 2014,” was amended to “a prosecutor abandons a bags for travel containing the upper half of the victim’s body as of May 30, 2014, as of May 23:56, 2014,” and this Court
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and the argument of suffering from mental illness still are subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined.
B. The defendant's assertion of mistake of fact in the court below is the same as the grounds for appeal in this part.