In the case of the application of Article 10(3) of the Criminal Code, there is an error in the incomplete hearing.

The ability or decision-making ability to distinguish things referred to in this Article is related to the ability of decision-making based on free will, and the existence and degree of the ability is a factual issue pertaining to the matters to be appraised, and even if it is a matter of fact falling under the matters to be appraised, it is a matter of law and it is a matter of law that the confirmed fact about the capacity falls under the mental state of the defendant, and the testimony of the appraiser is merely a matter of law about the fact that the mental state of the defendant at the time of committing the crime, and the testimony of the appraiser is a matter of law about the nautical miles

Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act; Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 67No395 delivered on February 29, 1968

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The judgment of the court of first instance was based on the following facts: (a) it was hard to find out the Defendant’s mental state of mind and body without any specific mental health condition; (b) it was hard to find out the Defendant’s mental state of mind and body at the time of the crime; and (c) it was hard to find out the Defendant’s mental state of mind and body without any specific mental health condition; and (d) it was hard to find out the Defendant’s mental state of mind and body at the time of the crime; (c) it was hard to find out the Defendant’s mental state of mind and body without any specific mental health condition; and (d) it was hard to find out the Defendant’s mental state of mind and body at the time of the crime; and (d) it was hard to find the Defendant’s mental state of mind and body without any specific mental health condition; and (d) it was hard to find out the Defendant’s mental state of mind and body at the time of the death of the Defendant; and (d) it was hard to find the Defendant’s oral decision-making process.

In addition, in light of the above appraisal statement (4) (6) of the situation of abnormal behavior and the fact that the defendant voluntarily flaged in the grounds of appeal, as stated by the defendant's prior to several months prior to the first instance court's judgment, as stated in the above appraisal statement (4) (6), could have known that the defendant at the time of the crime was in a place where the defendant would be able to make the same drinking as drinking that could cause mental and physical harm. Thus, the court below should examine whether the defendant was predicted, or could have predicted, abnormal changes in his mental state after drinking, as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance as of the date of the crime, and determine whether to adapt to Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act as to the crime of this case, the judgment of the court below cannot be seen as a violation of the law of hearing and judgment, since the judgment of the court below should not be seen as a violation of Article 10 (3) of the above facts.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 391 and 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act in accordance with the opinion unanimously consistent with all participating judges, omitting the judgment on the second ground of appeal by the above arbitr.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)