All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (10 years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles concerning prosecutor's mental and physical weakness, the process and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant clearly recognizes the meaning and result of his act, etc., the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the basis of the mental and physical weakness of the Defendant.

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

With respect to the prosecutor's assertion on mental and physical weakness, the mental and physical disorder provided for in Article 10 of the relevant legal principles is a biological factor and needs to be judged as lacking or reduced in the ability to distinguish things due to mental disorder other than mental disorder such as mental disorder, mental weakness or abnormal mental condition. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with a normal mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, if he/she had the ability to distinguish things or control actions accordingly, he/she cannot be deemed a mental disorder. However, in the case of a fixed mental disorder such as mental disorder, such mental disorder cannot be deemed a mental disorder if he/she had the ability to distinguish things at the time of committing the crime. However, even if the person with mental disorder seems to have the same mental disorder as the normal person, it is often related to the mental disorder where he/she was unable to suppress the impulse of the crime in the process of causing the crime. In such case, it is reasonable to view him/her as a mental disorder and thus, it is not a mental disorder (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7342, Dec. 9, 2005).