The case where it is recognized that there was a state of mental disability such as pulmonary evidence and related net injury at the time of crime.

If the crime of this case was committed by intimidation, etc. by a person who did not have a dynamic relation but committed dynamic behavior, extremely unrealistic behavior, etc. with no dynamic relation due to a self-defluence, a broadcast network historical evidence, etc., even though the victim did not broadcast himself/herself as sick even at the time of committing the crime of this case, it is reasonable to view that the victim had weak ability to distinguish objects or make decisions at the time of committing the crime.

Article 10 of the Criminal Act

70Do1358 decided July 28, 1970 (Article 10(26)16 of the Criminal Act, Article 9082 house 18B75 of the Criminal Act) 80Do656 decided May 27, 1980 (Article 10(38)18 of the Criminal Act, Article 636-12894 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Jeju District Court (84 High Court Decision 97) in the first instance trial

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years.

One hundred fifteen days out of the detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is as follows: first, the defendant committed the crime of this case under the condition of mental disorder, but the court below did not deliberate and determine it; second, there were errors in the judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment; second, even if not, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable; second, the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is too unreasonable; and therefore, the judgment of the court below's punishment is too unreasonable

Comprehensively taking account of the suspect interrogation records against the defendant prepared by the prosecutor, the judicial police officer's written statement of Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3, the agreement on the preparation of Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3, and the mental appraisal statement of Nonindicted 4 prepared by the trial examiner, the defendant was a person who had been engaged in dynamics, acts that have no dynamics, and acts that have no dynamics, etc., due to dynamics or broadcasting network symptoms, etc., and even though the victim Nonindicted 1 did not broadcast the defendant as Byung on August 7, 1984, which was the date of the crime of this case, the victim Nonindicted 1 was led to the crime of this case, such as intimidation, etc., as acknowledged by the court below, and the defendant was unable to recognize that the defendant had no ability to investigate the crime of this case at least because he was knick on June 21, 1984, and there was no other ability to recognize that the defendant had no capacity to investigate the crime of this case after the crime of this case.

Therefore, each so-called the judgment of the defendant is a so-called person with a mental disability who is a necessary mitigation under Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below which judged the punishment without reaching this point is erroneous in the misapprehension of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in this respect and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

The criminal facts recognized as a member and the evidence of them are all the same as those of the judgment of the court below, and they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2 (2) of the Criminal Act, Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 250 (1) of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, Article 2 (2) and Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Article 250 of the Criminal Act, Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 250 of the Criminal Act, Article 250 of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, Article 35 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 35 of the Criminal Act, Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 5 of the same Act, and Article 7 (15) of the same Act, of the same Act, since each of the above provision of Article 30 of the same Act, provides for concurrent punishment of the same Act.

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

Judges Han-dae (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-chul