The case holding that the act of a person with mental disability constitutes a requisite mitigation reason;

Although the Defendant was in a state of weak child in the so-called boundary state in mental medicine, it can be recognized that there was a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions because under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant case, it constitutes a cause for necessary mitigation.

Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 80Gohap46 delivered on August 1, 200

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One hundred and twenty days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for 4 years from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is that the court below recognized that the fire of this case caused by the negligence of the defendant intentionally was damaged by the defendant, and that there was an error of mistake of facts affecting the judgment, and the sentencing of the defendant is too unreasonable.

In full view of the evidence duly examined by the court below compared the records, it is sufficient to recognize that the defendant intentionally laid down his house and caused the fire to be damaged by the non-indicted 1, his wife as the time of original judgment. Thus, there is no reason for the defendant's assertion that the fire in this case occurred, but at the same time the defendant's statement in part at the court of original judgment and the mental appraisal report as to the defendant prepared by non-indicted 1, as well as the motive, means, methods, etc. of the crime in this case while comparing with the contents of the non-indicted 1's mental appraisal report as to the defendant prepared by non-indicted 2, the defendant was in a weak state in the so-called boundary state in mental medicine before the crime in this case was far more than before the crime in this case was committed, and it can be recognized that the defendant's act of the non-indicted 1, who was so-called "non-indicted 1, the ability to distinguish things or make decisions," and thus, it is clear that the judgment of the court below should be mitigated and applied in violation of law.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the remaining grounds for appeal by the defendant.

The criminal facts recognized as a member of a party and the evidence thereof are the end of the criminal facts, which read as "the person in receipt of images," and the defendant added "the defendant was in a state of mental or physical disability at the time of the crime in this case," and this is the same as the judgment of the court below that added "the defendant was in a state of mental or physical disability at the time of the crime."

On the other hand, the court below held that the defendant's judgment falls under the latter part of Article 164 of the Criminal Act. Since the defendant selected a limited term of imprisonment and the defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of committing the crime in this case, the defendant is legally mitigated pursuant to Articles 10 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, and there are reasons to take into account the circumstances of the crime in accordance with Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years within the period of punishment, and one hundred and twenty days from the number of days under Article 57 of the same Act shall be included in the above punishment, but since it is recognized that there are grounds to consider the above punishment for four years from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive pursuant to Article 62 (1) of the same Act, such as the fact that the defendant is in a state of mental and physical disability after committing the crime in this case.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Yoon Young (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)