beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant was in a state that the defendant lacks the ability to distinguish the mental disorder and the ability to make decisions at the time of each of the crimes in this case.
The imprisonment (five years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
The defendant asserts that the knife used in the first crime and the second crime are different from each other, and that the court below recognized that he committed the second crime by purchasing another knife on the following day and purchasing it again, and thus, he committed the second crime, and that there was an error of mistake of facts in the court below's determination that he committed the second crime.
The above assertion is understood to the purport that it is difficult to regard it as a mistake of fact because it is not related to the facts constituting the crime of each of the special robbery of this case, and it should be considered in sentencing, such as the assertion.
Therefore, according to the CCTV images taken at the time of each of the instant crimes (section 81 of investigation records), if the Defendant, while suffering the same clothes at the time, appears to have added clothes incurred at the time of the second crime due to the difference in the brightness and CCTV types at the time of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s excessive personal belongings at the time of each of the instant crimes appears to be a yellow color system, and the length and shape appears to be insufficient, and the Defendant, following the second crime, after being under the suspect interrogation of the Defendant, made a concrete statement about where he/she purchased his/her behavior and first use for the first crime, but did not completely purchase the excess for the second crime after he/she laid off the transition used for the first crime, it is reasonable to deem that the excess used at the time of each of the instant crimes is the same.
Furthermore, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant is immediately after the first crime.