Defendant

Defendant

Park Young-gu

Attorneys Kim Jong-le (Korean) et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da6966, 6645 decided January 24, 2007

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

74 days from the number of days under detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the penalty of the original judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Mental and physical disorder;

The Defendant, when committing each of the crimes in this case, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, did not recognize it. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for mistake of facts or reduction of legal liability, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. Unreasonable sentencing

Considering all the circumstances, the lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mental disorder

According to the records, at around 13:00 on July 24, 2006, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had a drinking condition at the time of committing the crime against the victim non-indicted 1. At around 02:00 on July 27, 2006, the defendant was found to have a drinking condition at the time of committing the crime against the victim non-indicted 2, but it is recognized that the defendant had a drinking condition at the time of committing the crime against the victim non-indicted 2. In light of the defendant's ordinary drinking volume, the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of committing the crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., it does not seem that the defendant did not have the ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the crime. Accordingly,

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unreasonable because it was excessively unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is also without merit. However, even though it appears that the Defendant had been punished several times due to fraud and habitual frauds, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated offense period, and even if part of the damage was not recovered, it did not take any particular measures to recover damage up to the trial.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. According to Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 74 days out of the number of detention days per trial prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the penalty of the original judgment. It is so decided

Judges Noh Tae (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-Un Trademark