The case holding that a person who had a mental disorder at the time of committing the crime was in danger of repeating the crime because there was no healing data until the appellate judgment was rendered.

If there is no evidence that there was no risk of re-offending due to the cure of the mental illness at the time of the judgment of the appellate court until the time of the judgment of the appellate court, the mental illness of the person who filed the petition for the retrial continues to exist at the time of the judgment of the appellate court, and there is a risk of re-offending by causing a mental disorder in the future.

Article 8 of Social Protection Act

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Government Branch of Seoul District Court (85 U.S.C. 17)

The appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the respondent and defense counsel is as follows: although at the time of the crime of this case, the respondent was in the state of mental disorder due to the mental disorder, the mental disorder has been cured by treatment at the mental hospital so far, the judgment of the court below on the premise that there is a risk of recidivism in the state of mental disorder due to mental fission.

Therefore, in full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it is proved that the applicant for a warrant of custody had been suffering from mental illness at the time of the crime in this case, and thereafter, the applicant for a warrant of custody custody is hospitalized and treated at a medical corporation mental hospital from April 3, 1985 to the time of the judgment of the court, but there is no evidence that the applicant for a warrant of custody custody is cured of the mental illness at the time of the judgment of the court, and there is no risk of re-offending, and considering the attitude of statement at the trial of the requester for the warrant custody, the mental illness of the requester for a warrant of custody continues at the time of the judgment of the court of the court of first instance, and there is danger of

Therefore, the appeal by the requester for the custody is without merit, so it is dismissed in accordance with Article 42 of the Social Protection Act and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)