2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the misapprehension of the legal principle and the evidence revealed during the proceedings of this case, it is recognized that the defendant suffered from diseases, such as "sexual disability and exposure," and that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case because he did not suppress impulses.

Accordingly, it is also recognized that there is a great need for medical treatment because the defendant has difficulty in controlling sexual impulses and sexual impulses, and that the expert's intervention in the sexual impulses and acts is also necessary.

However, according to the above materials, the "mental disorder" expressed by the defendant is a kind of mental defect that does not interfere with his/her impulse, rather than a mental disorder (a mental disorder is expressed in the form of "psychological disorder" in the form of "psychological medicine"), and it seems that there is no restriction on the actual and variable disorder.

In addition, the phenomenon where a crime was committed due to the failure to suppress one's impulses is likely to be found even for normal persons. Barring special circumstances, it cannot be said that a person who has such character defect requires an act that cannot be expected to control his impulses and to demand compliance with the law, barring special circumstances, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the same character defect as the shock disorder does not constitute a mental disorder, which is the cause of reduction or exemption of punishment, as a matter of principle.

However, even if a defect of the same nature as a shock disorder is so serious that it can be assessed to be equal to a person with an original mental disorder due to its serious seriousness, the crime resulting therefrom shall be deemed to be a crime for mental disorder.

Supreme Court Decision 201. 201