A. A summary of an expert’s appraisal in determining whether a person has a mental disorder (negative)

B. The legitimacy of the measure, without undergoing a mental appraisal, provided that the defendant et al. was not a mentally disabled person in light of the circumstances at the time of crime

A. Whether an act of a person with mental disorder is not always determined by the expert's appraisal, but by the expert's appraisal, it cannot be deemed unlawful even if it is recognized that the act is not an act of a person with mental disorder or a person with mental disorder by taking into account all the materials mentioned in the situation or records before and after the act,

B. Although the Defendant had no memory as to a crime at the prosecution, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had no memory under the influence of alcohol because he was entirely aware of the fact of the crime, and according to the victim’s statement, the Defendant did not sniffe the Defendant at the time of the crime. Although the Defendant’s mental state had the Defendant’s wife’s statement that the Defendant had the same motive as that of the Defendant because the Defendant was used without the previous reason or left snife an empty disease collected, it is difficult to say that the Defendant had mental illness on the sole basis of this statement. However, if there is no evidence to prove whether the Defendant was brain or brain, the Defendant’s criminal record, the circumstance, method, and circumstances after the crime, etc. of this case shall be considered to have taken full account of the Defendant’s criminal history, the measure to reject the Defendant’s complaint that the Defendant did not have the ability or decision-

Article 10 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jong-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 83No3134 delivered on February 16, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

60 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are examined.

In theory, since it is doubtful that the crime of this case was not committed in a normal mental state because the defendant did not memory the facts at the time of the crime of drinking alcohol at the time of the crime, and the defendant is suspected that the crime of this case was not committed in a normal mental state, the judgment of the court below which recognized the crime of normal person without doing so is unlawful. The issue of whether the person with mental disorder was an act of a person with mental disorder is not always determined by expert's appraisal, but it cannot be deemed unlawful even if it was recognized that the person was not an act of a person with mental disorder or a person with mental disorder by taking into account all the materials mentioned in the circumstances or records before

기록에 의하면, 피고인은 검찰에서 피고인이 이 사건 범행전에 맥주 한 병과 2홉들이 소주 한 병을 마셨는데 이건 범행의 전후 경위는 전혀 기억이 없고 강취한 손가방을 가지고 도망치다 경찰관에게 검거된 사실만 기억이 난다 하였으나 제1심 법정에서는 범죄사실을 전부 시인하고 있고, 피해자 역시 범행당시 피고인으로부터 술냄새는 나지 않았다고 진술하고 있어서 범행당시 술에 취하여 기억이 전혀 없었다고는 단정하기 어렵고, 피고인의 정신상태에 대하여는 피고인의 처 가 검찰에서 수입이 넉넉하여 도둑질을 할 이유가 전혀 없는데 5년전에 이유없이 쓰러지면서 숨이 찬다고 사람 살리라고 하여 병원에 가서 진찰결과 의사의 말이 발작 당시에 와야 진상을 알 수 있다고 한 바가 있고, 그 후 한번은 이유없이 돈주고 수집한 빈병을 모두 깨버려 이유를 물은 즉 화가 나서 깼다고 한 점으로 보아 남편에게 원인모를 병이 있는것 같다고 진술하고 있는 바, 위 사실만으로 피고인에게 정신질환이 있다고 의심이 간다고는 하기 어렵고 피고인이 뇌를 다친 여부에 관하여는 이를 인정할 자료가 없는 반면 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인은 법정에서 범행에 관하여 정확히 시인하고 있고, 기록에 나타난 피고인의 범죄경력이나 이 사건 범행의 경위, 방법 및 범행후의 정황을 모아보면 범행당시 피고인이 사물을 판별할 능력이나 의사결정능력이 없었거나 미약하였다는 변소를 배척한 조치는 정당하게 수긍이 가고, 그 정신감정을 거치지 아니하였다 하여 위법이라 할 수 없다. 논지는 이유없다.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that, by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 60 days from the date of appeal to the original sentence after the date of appeal.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)