Remedial claimant and inmate

Prisoners

Suwon District Court Order 2010Ra5 dated October 19, 2010

Suwon District Court Order 2010Ra1 dated March 17, 2011

Supreme Court Order 2011Ma1 Decided June 14, 201

The appellant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The decision of the court below which dismissed a petition for remedy by an appellant, even though the measure of the prisoner who accepted the appellant who did not have mental illness or who had ceased to exist, is unlawful. Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed and the prisoners are to be released from confinement.

2. Whether the instant appeal is lawful

A. According to the records, on August 9, 201, in which the appeal of this case is pending in the trial, the prisoner released the appellant and released him from the confinement, and the guardian again hospitalized the appellant at the ○○ Hospital located in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Revised-dong (number omitted) at the time of permitting the appellant on the same day. Thus, even though the prisoner of the appeal of this case had rescinded the acceptance of the appellant, the appeal of this case seeking the cancellation of confinement against the prisoner is still lawful, and therefore, what is the object of the adjudication of the appeal.

B. The purpose of the Personal Protection Act is to protect the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by preparing procedures for personal relief which unfairly restrict the freedom of human beings due to illegal administrative dispositions or expropriation of facilities by private persons (Article 1 of the Personal Protection Act). Moreover, the same does not apply to cases where the confinement after the request for remedy is cancelled or the prisoner is changed (Article 6(1) of the same Act). If the court has cancelled the confinement after accepting the petition for remedy, it shall not re-hospitalize the petitioner for remedy on the same ground as the premise for the claim for remedy (Article 16 of the same Act). In light of the contents and purport of each of the above provisions, even if the petition for remedy and the appeal have been dismissed by the prisoner during the process of filing the petition for remedy, if the petitioner for remedy or the appellant has already been expropriated in a separate confinement facility for the same reason as the ground for filing the petition for remedy with the court or the possibility of being expropriated for the same reason in the future, the court shall determine the purport of lawful confirmation as to the commencement or rejection of the petition.

3. Appropriateness of the grounds for appeal; and

Therefore, according to the results of the examination, records, and the examination of the court on February 2, 2010 as to whether the confinement of the appellant against the appellant was illegally initiated or lawfully expropriated, the prisoner started the confinement of the appellant under the confirmation of his/her guardian, based on the diagnosis and evaluation results of other hospital's appellant, interview records on his/her family, including his/her guardian, interview records on family members including his/her guardian, and the result of the examination of brain functions, etc. on February 2, 2010.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-hee (Presiding Judge)