The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 4(1) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act provides that "Any prosecutor may file a request for medical treatment and custody with the competent court where a person subject to medical treatment and custody needs to receive medical treatment and custody," and Article 4(7) of the same Act provides that "the court may request a prosecutor to file a request for medical treatment and custody when it deems it necessary to do so as a result of the examination of a prosecuted case." In light of the regulatory form thereof, Article 4(7) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act cannot be deemed as imposing

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4211 Decided September 14, 2006, etc.). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the lower court’s failure to demand a prosecutor to request a medical treatment and custody application is unlawful.

In addition, in light of the above legal principles, there is no prosecutor's request for medical treatment and custody in this case where there is no prosecutor's request for medical treatment and custody.

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