beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, appeal by the person who requested probation order is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Part 1 of the defendant's case is erroneous (as to the crime in the case of 2018 Gohap205 in the original judgment), the defendant and the person requesting probation order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant")
(2) The Defendant’s defense counsel stated in the statement of grounds for appeal that “the Defendant appears to have good mental health conditions due to alcohol-related diseases, and such mental state of the Defendant seems to have affected a part of the crime” during the second trial of the trial of the party concerned, that “The mental disorder related to alcohol is diagnosed as having affected the crime of this case.” However, the Defendant’s defense counsel stated in the statement of grounds for appeal that “The mental disorder related to alcohol is diagnosed as having affected the crime of this case.”
The defense counsel's assertion appears to the purport that the defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime.
The Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime, such as alcohol addiction and mental fission disorder symptoms.
Nevertheless, the lower court did not reduce the Defendant’s mental illness.
3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two-year imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
B. Since the defendant does not commit a crime of indecent act by compulsion or special intimidation in the part of the request for probation order, the probation order against the defendant is unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts (as to the crime in the case of 2018Dahap205, supra) was based on the judgment of the lower court on the ground that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the Defendant: (a) forced the disabled victim E by compulsion; and (b) forced the victim F, who was the Defendant, to use the knife with a deadly weapon, thereby threatening the victim F.