The appeal filed by both the candidate for medical treatment and custody and the prosecutor shall be dismissed.

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts by the Defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”), the Defendant did not commit the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below. (2) The Defendant not only led to the confession of all the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, but also fully recognizes that the Defendant committed the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below in full view of the evidence (in particular, the police statement of the victims) duly adopted and examined by the court below.

(B) The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and acceptable, and it cannot be said that there were errors by misunderstanding facts, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant’s summary of his/her assertion is a person who committed a principal offense in a state of mental disorder due to the adaptation disorder, detailed unknown disorder, and thus requires medical treatment at the medical treatment and custody facility and the risk of re-offending. (2) The risk of re-offending, which is the element of the medical treatment and custody, refers to a case where the applicant for the medical treatment and custody, has a considerable probability for preventing the crime from committing a crime in a state of mental disorder again in the future. The existence of such risk is a cause for the applicant for the medical treatment and custody, and it should be objectively determined by comprehensively assessing all the circumstances such as the contents of the crime in question and the degree of mental disorder of the applicant for the medical treatment and custody at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment, nature and difficulty of medical treatment and custody, whether the applicant for the

(B) The circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1908, 2000Do62, Jul. 4, 2000). (B) The lower court is the Defendant.