Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of the instant case was in possession of a yellow red knife, not a yellow knife, presented as evidence of the instant case, and did not display it.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by displaying the yellow knife, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Although the applicant for medical treatment and custody in the case of the medical treatment and custody application has long been receiving medical treatment in a mental hospital, there was no mental disorder in the same way as the court below decided at the time of the case.

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced the applicant for medical treatment and custody to the medical treatment and custody. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence examined by the lower court, such as the victim’s testimony at the lower court’s court’s legal testimony, seizure protocol, and the statement of mental sentiment on the preparation of a medical doctor belonging to a medical doctor’s office, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant and the applicant for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “the defendant”) inflicted an injury on the victim with a yellow-chacker (Evidence 1 of this case) toward his face.

Furthermore, in full view of the motive, background and details of the instant crime, the doctor’s medical opinion by appraisal, and the Defendant’s attitude from an investigation agency to this court, etc., the Defendant committed the instant crime that constitutes imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment in the state of having the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental division (F20), and even now, the symptoms of the instant mental disorder continue to exist, and thus, it is recognized that there is a risk of recidivism unless medical treatment and custody facilities receive medical treatment.

The defendant's arguments in the above appeal are without merit.

3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 51 of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.