In principle, the degree of mental disorder of a person subject to protective custody should be judged by the expert's appraisal. However, if the degree of mental disorder is judged by considering all the materials recorded in the records and the attitude of the person subject to protective custody in the court below and the first instance court's judgment, it cannot be said that the person subject to protective custody without the expert's appraisal. Considering the evidence and the attitude of the person subject to protective custody as shown in the records, etc., the person subject to protective custody cannot be judged by the court below's judgment because the person subject to protective custody satisfies the requirements for medical treatment and custody as stipulated in Article 8 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act because the person subject to protective custody has no ability to distinguish things due to mental disorder before and after the act subject to protective custody. The mental disorder of the person subject to protective custody is justified and the degree of mental disorder of the above person subject to protective custody can be seen by the statement in the opinion of the first instance court and the statement in the appraisal document prepared by Kim Ma-ho.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the requester for custody

According to the provisions of Article 8 of the Social Protection Act, when a person who is not punishable pursuant to the provisions of Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act commits a crime punishable by imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment, the person shall be subject to medical treatment and custody as necessary. As such, so long as the so-called applicant for the warrant of custody satisfies the requirements for medical treatment and custody, the court does not have any grounds for exemption. Therefore, the lawsuit is not a legitimate ground for appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed,

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)