beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a mental and physical state due to mental illness such as an anti-competitive disorder.
B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. Before determining the Defendant’s grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal ex officio, the lower court: (a) considered the Defendant as having led to a confession of all the facts charged in this case; and (b) decided and notified that the Defendant should make a trial by a simplified trial procedure; and (c) completed the examination of evidence in accordance with the method prescribed in Article 297-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act; and (d) considered all the evidence presented pursuant to Article 318-3 of the same Act as admissible;
However, according to the records, the defendant filed an application for formal trial against the summary order issued by Jinyang Branch Court Decision 2012 Goyang Branch Court Decision 2012 Goyang Branch Court Decision 4641, and stated that the crime of this case was committed in the state of exploitation, and the defendant was suffering from the same sex disorder, etc., and submitted a medical certificate on the first trial date of the court below, and made a statement to the effect that he was bready by drinking while submitting the medical certificate on March 28, 2013, and that he also stated the defendant's mental name and state of the defendant's mental illness and state. If this circumstance is presented, it can be deemed that the defendant is claiming mental disorder. Thus, this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been led to the confession of this part of the charges, and on the same reason, the court below's decision was revoked as a simple trial procedure pursuant to Article 286-3 of the same Act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the summary trial procedure, or by evidence finding.