When the Defendant excluded from the crime of this case, he did not commit any assault against another person, and the crime of this case was committed contingent, and the degree of such assault was not serious, there is no risk of repeating the crime.

Judgment

The judgment on the risk of recidivism, which is the requirement for medical treatment and custody, shall be based on the time of the judgment on the medical treatment and custody application case rather than on the market price. The fact that a candidate for medical treatment and custody was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime is recognized by evidence and the mental illness of the candidate for medical treatment and custody is completely treated at the time of the judgment, and there is no evidence to the effect that the disease will not be re-explo

(See Supreme Court Decisions 87Do50 delivered on May 12, 1987, and 96Do21 delivered on April 23, 1996, etc.). According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and this court, in particular, the applicant for medical treatment and custody shows poverty and differences in the contents of an accident and accident, and the applicant for medical treatment and custody appears to be inappropriate, limited dynamics and social disencing, and so on. The applicant for medical treatment and custody is diagnosed as an unconceptic mental disorder that is presumed to obstruct actual verification and judgment, and is diagnosed as an unconceptic mental disorder that is presumed to obstructive to the actual verification and judgment power. However, the symptoms, such as summons, network, and dynamic aggressive behavior continue to be partially mitigated due to drugs, but the overall evaluation and judgment ability is shown, and continuous treatment of the person subject to medical treatment and diagnosis is necessary, and the remaining period for treatment of the person subject to mental disorder and its ability to intervene in the injury should be verified.