beta
Text
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of committing the instant crime against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death and Injury resulting from Dangerous Driving), the Defendant was in a state that he/she lacks the ability to discern or make decisions about Mauritiuss from excessive surgery.
B. Each sentence (the first instance court: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, and 2 year: imprisonment of 1 year and 1 year) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of ex officio determination, the first and second court rendered ex officio the judgment to the Defendant and subsequently sentenced the Defendant to the above punishment, and the Defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgment, and the court below decided to hold concurrent hearings. The first and second crimes of the court below against the Defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and must be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below was reversed.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the claim of mental disability, it is found that the defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol to some extent at the time of committing the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death and Injury resulting from Dangerous Driving), but in light of the circumstances leading to the crime, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder at the time of committing the crime. Thus, this part of the
3. Conclusion.