Whether Article 4 (7) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act imposes an obligation on this court to request medical treatment and custody (negative)

Article 4(1) and (7) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Misappropriation

Seoul High Court Decision 2006No594 decided June 15, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. 76 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. According to the records, the defendant, like the judgment of the court below at the time of the crime of this case, was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder, and cannot be deemed to have existed in a state of mental or physical disorder without such ability. Thus, the ground of appeal

On the other hand, since the court below judged that the defendant was in a state of mental or physical disability even when he committed an attempted crime of fire-prevention of a public building in the judgment below, the first ground for appeal on different premise is erroneous in the purport of the judgment below,

2. Article 4(1) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act provides that “A 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 be subject to medical treatment and custody,” and Article 4(7) of the same Act provides that “a court may request a prosecutor to file a request for medical treatment and custody when it recognizes that the person subject to medical treatment and custody should be subject to medical treatment and custody as a result of the examination of a prosecuted case.” In light of the form of the provision, etc., it cannot be deemed that this court imposes an

In light of the above legal principles, it cannot be said that the court below did not request the prosecutor to request medical treatment and custody when reducing mental and physical disability with respect to the defendant's crime of this case.

The ground of appeal concerning this cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)