The order of statutory mitigation and aggravation of concurrent crimes;

In accordance with Article 56 of the Criminal Code, when there are concurrent reasons for the increase or decrease of punishment, legal mitigation is first given, and then there is a provision that concurrent crimes will be more severe.

Article 56 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293 Form509 Decided September 30, 1960 (Supreme Court Decision 8-75 Decided September 30, 1960; Decision 10(7)1225 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Busan District Court (81Gohap35)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for fifteen years.

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

Attached Schedules (Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17) recorded in the seized Schedule shall be confiscated from the defendant.

The gist of the appeal by the public prosecutor is that the defendant's act of destroying the victim's body was likely to cause severe harm to his own body even if he had been found to have been unable to regulate his shock, and the defendant was found to have been in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing this case. However, according to the mental sentiment of Non-Party 1 and 2 as cited by the court below, the defendant's act of killing the victim's body was not likely to be reduced due to misunderstanding of the defendant's own mental disorder, because the defendant's act of destroying the victim's body was not likely to be able to kill the victim's body, and the defendant's act of killing the victim's body was not likely to have been reduced due to misunderstanding of the defendant's mental disorder and salvelative behavior, and even if he had no mental disorder and salvelative behavior, he cannot be considered to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been under the law of mental disorder.

However, considering the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below by comparing the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts at the time of original adjudication, and there is no other evidence to see that the court below erred in its fact-finding, and it is clear that the defendant was not in the state of mental disorder at the time of this case, and it is recognized that the defendant committed this case under the state of mental disorder, such as the time of original adjudication, and there is no error in the judgment of the court below as to this point.

However, prior to the judgment on the remaining grounds for appeal by the prosecutor and his defense counsel, the court below, according to the judgment below, selected a prescribed life sentence for the murder as stated in the judgment of the court below, and sentenced that the crime of this case shall be punished for murder as stated in the judgment of the court below in accordance with Articles 38 (1) 1 and 50 of the Criminal Act on the ground that the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the same Act. After recognizing that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant is punished for the defendant within the scope of the term of punishment.

However, according to Article 56 of the Criminal Act, when the grounds for the increase or decrease of punishment competes with each other, legal mitigation should be made first, and the following concurrent crimes should be aggravated, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of Article 56 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is not dismissed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below shall be ruled again as follows after pleading.

The relationship between facts constituting an offense acknowledged by a member and the evidence thereof is the same as that of the court below, and they are cited as it is.

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act provides 161(1) for the crime of murder, and Article 161(1) for the crime of murder, and Article 250(1) of the same Act provides 5 for the crime of murder, and Article 161 of the same Act provides 1 for the defendant as to the crime of murder, taking into account the fact that the motive of murder was liver and impulse, and the defendant selects the prescribed life imprisonment for the crime of life, and it is difficult to obtain the motive of murder in light of the ordinary sense as stated in the judgment while killing the victim, and there is no other motive to believe that it is difficult for the defendant to use the 2nd sentence after killing the victim, and there is no fear and punishment for the crime of death, and the defendant stated that the 1nd sentence of the above 2nd sentence of the crime of imprisonment with prison labor for the same purpose as that of the above 3nd sentence of the crime of imprisonment with prison labor for the same time as that of the above 5th sentence of punishment. Considering the fact that the defendant did not know that the crime of 2nd one’s before and after the death.

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

Judges Ahn Yong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)