A custody applicant shall be treated and custody at the request of a public prosecutor in the court.

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which did not reduce the physical and mental weakness despite the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol usage disorder at the time of the instant crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the mental and physical disorder provided for in Article 10 of the Criminal Act is a biological element, which requires that the mental disorder, other than mental disorder such as mental disorder or abnormal mental condition, has lost or reduced the ability to distinguish things and control action accordingly. Thus, even if a person with mental disability is a person with normal mental disorder at the time of committing a crime, he cannot be deemed a mental and physical disorder if he had the ability to distinguish things or control action (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7900, Feb. 8, 2007, etc.). According to the mental appraisal of the medical care and custody center for the defendant, even though it is deemed that the defendant was diagnosed as “high alcohol using disorder,” and it is difficult for the defendant to recognize that the defendant was provided with alcoholic beverages under the condition of having no intention or ability to pay alcohol value at the time of receiving alcohol at the prosecutor’s investigation, the defendant had no mental and physical disorder or ability to pay alcohol at the time of committing the crime.

The answer was made with the content of “competence”.