The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation and intent of “period of continuous hospitalization” and by violating the principle of no punishment without the law, as stipulated in Article 24(3) of the former Mental Health Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14224, May 29, 2016).

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act is not a legitimate ground for appeal, which is alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant or by the court below's ex officio decision.

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