beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The Defendant with mental disorder was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and the ability to discern things or make decisions was lost or weak. (2) The sentence of the lower court’s sentence on the Defendant with unfair sentencing (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor 1) Even though the prosecutor omitted from the pronouncement of confiscation sought the confiscation of the articles seized from the Defendant, the lower court omitted the sentence of confiscation. 2) The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the record as to the Defendant’s mental and physical disability assertion, even though the Defendant was deemed to have drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime, etc., the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time
Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of omission of a declaration of forfeiture, the confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is discretionary, so the issue of whether to confiscate an article that meets the requirement of forfeiture is at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002), and is subject to articles not owned by a person other than the criminal.
According to the records, confiscated articles are merely clothes and shoes (Evidence Nos. 1 through 4) worn by the defendant on the day of the crime of this case, and are not subject to confiscation under each subparagraph of Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, or are objects owned by a person other than the criminal (Evidence No. 6). Thus, the confiscation requirement under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is not satisfied.
Even if these seized articles meet the above confiscation requirement, the court below held that they meet the above confiscation requirement.