In addition, all appeals filed by the medical care and custody applicant, the requester for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant and the victim of the medical care and custody warrant (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the health status of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant had no intention to kill the victim at the time of committing the instant crime in light of the lower court’s determination or legal doctrine; and (c) the criminal implements prepared by the Defendant;

Although it should be seen, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's intention of murder is erroneous by mistake.

B) In light of the mental sentiment that the sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable and unfair, in light of the current state of the Defendant with symptoms of cerebral chronology at the same time, and that the Defendant’s hospitalization at the “medical treatment order” or “designated legal hospital” is appropriate in a general hospital capable of receiving outpatient treatment or coping with emergency situations at home with his/her parents, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant is subject to the care and custody in the custody center is unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) part of the case of Defendant 1 - The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unfluent and unreasonable). 2) The lower court’s determination that dismissed the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case, despite the risk of recommitting the murder offense.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, may recognize that the Defendant had had had the intent to murder with the victim.

The decision was determined.

① The Defendant brought excessive and convenience points to die F in the police investigation, and there is no above F, and only the victim was the only victim, but there is multiple priority in the victim.