[2] The meaning of "risk of re-offenders" which is a requirement for medical treatment and custody, and the standard for determining such risk

[3] The probative value of the protocol of trial

[2] The risk of repeating a crime, which is a requirement for medical treatment and custody, refers to a case where there is a considerable probability that the requester for a warrant has committed a crime again in the future in the state of mental disorder. The existence of such danger shall be objectively determined by comprehensively assessing all the circumstances, including the content of the crime in question and the degree of mental disorder of the requester for a warranting warrant at the time of sentencing, the nature and degree of difficulty of treatment, the degree of difficulty of treatment, whether the applicant for a warranting warranting warranting warranting warranting the prevention of recidivism, whether the applicant for a warranting warranting warranting warranting the warranting warranting

[3] Except where there is an obvious clerical error in the contents of the protocol, the legal proceedings at the court date which are written in the protocol are proved only by the protocol, and its probative value is absolute that no counter-proof is allowed by data other than the protocol.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 and the ground of appeal by a state appointed defense counsel (the part of the case by the defendant) by the defendant and the respondent for defense (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant")

If the evidence admitted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, it can sufficiently recognize the criminal facts of this case.

Meanwhile, in the crime of false accusation, a report of false facts refers to a conclusive or dolusent recognition and report that the reported fact goes against the objective fact, and thus, even if it is inconsistent with the objective fact, if the reporting person reports it as true, the crime of false accusation shall not be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do2354, Nov. 8, 1983; 8Do99, Sept. 27, 1988). However, the conviction of the truth refers to the case where the reporting person is aware of the objective fact known to the reporting person, even if it is based on the objective fact known to the reporting person, it does not include the case where the reporting person makes a false or false statement based on the objective fact known to the reporting person, but it does not include the case where the reporting person knows that the reported fact is false or might be false, and it does not include the case where the reporting person makes a false statement without any justifiable reason without disregarding such objective fact. According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below which affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty is just, and there is no illegality such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the criminal intent.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 2 (Medical Treatment and Custody Part)

If the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below is examined by comparing it with records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has a state of mental disability due to the net mental disorder not only at the time of the crime of this case but also up to now.

In addition, the risk of recidivism, which is a requirement for medical treatment and custody, refers to a case where there is a probable probability that the respondent would stop the crime again in the future. The existence of such risk is an act causing the danger of the respondent at the time of sentencing, such as the contents of the crime in question and the degree of mental disorder of the respondent at the time of sentencing, the nature and difficulty of treatment, the degree of an environment where treatment can be continued in the future, whether the respondent has an intention to prevent recidivism (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do103, Aug. 28, 1990). In addition, the above circumstances indicated in the records, such as all the above circumstances, are objectively determined by comprehensively assessing the circumstances, such as the contents of the crime in question and the degree of mental disorder of the respondent at the time of sentencing, the nature and difficulty of treatment, whether the respondent is equipped with an environment where treatment can be continued in the future, and whether the respondent is willing to prevent recidivism of the witness at the time of the first instance trial.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court of first instance which maintained the judgment that recognized the defendant as meeting the requirements for medical treatment and custody is justifiable, and there is no illegality such as misunderstanding the judgment on mental or physical disability or misunderstanding the legal principles on the risk of recidivism.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

3. On the third ground for appeal by the defendant

Except in cases where there is an obvious clerical error in the contents of the protocol, the document recorded in the protocol of trial as a litigation procedure is proved only by the protocol, and its probative value is absolute, inasmuch as materials other than the protocol of trial are not allowed to be counter-proof (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do1252, Sept. 10, 196). Therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal purporting that the entry of the protocol of trial in the original and the first instance court was erroneous is without merit.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)