약물치료명령부과처분취소등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on April 21, 2014.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance alleged in the trial is not significantly different from that of the first instance as alleged in the judgment, and even if the statement of the evidence Nos. 7 and 8 submitted in the court of first instance is presented differently from the evidence of the first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance, which held that the disposition of the instant pharmacologic treatment order is null and void (and it is difficult to see that the case constitutes a case where a judgment can be rendered on the circumstances provided in Article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Act). Accordingly, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is identical to that of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it is determined to accept
2. According to the records of the instant disposition suspending the execution of the instant disposition of pharmacologic treatment order, it is recognized that the execution of the instant disposition of pharmacologic treatment order requires urgent measures to prevent irrecoverable damage to the Plaintiff, and no other evidence exists to deem that the suspension of execution may cause serious damage to the public welfare, and thus, the execution of the instant disposition of pharmacologic treatment order shall be suspended ex officio until the judgment becomes final and conclusive.
3. The decision of the first instance court is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the suspension of the execution of the disposition of pharmacologic treatment order of this case.