beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the treatment and custody case shall be reversed.
Defendant
In addition, the medical care and custody applicant is in the treatment and custody.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The part of the case against the defendant (a two-way sentencing argument) that the court below sentenced the defendant and the person in charge of care and custody for the treatment of the defendant (hereinafter "the defendant") (a punishment of imprisonment of one year, No. 1 and No. 2) (the confiscation of each confiscation of one year, No. 1 and No. 2) is too heavy or unreasonable.
B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for medical treatment and custody even when the need for medical treatment and the risk of recidivism are recognized.
2. Where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below on the part of the case of the defendant, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The method and result of the crime of this case are very serious (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In particular, the victim suffered serious injury to the left side of the case of this case, but he was unable to receive a letter from the damaged party, and was unable to recover economic damage, etc., and is disadvantageous to the defendant; the defendant is led to the confession of the crime of this case; the defendant has an intellectual disability of Grade 3; the defendant committed a crime under the state of mental or physical weakness; the defendant committed a crime under the influence of criminal punishment; and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment; and the court below’s punishment
shall not be deemed to exist.
All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor that the sentencing of the court below is unfair are rejected.
3. Determination on the part of the medical treatment and custody case
A. In light of the fact that the Defendant appeared to have committed the instant crime because of the division of father immediately before the instant case, on the other hand, the mental disorder was not discovered, and the Defendant did not have the same criminal history, the lower court’s judgment alone held that the Defendant was fluorial knife and brut, etc.