Defendant

The appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody shall be dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") have less knife the victim at the time of the crime of this case, there was no fact that the victim was knife as a knife at the time of the original judgment.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is unlawful.

In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in the state of mental disorder caused by mental disorder, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The defendant of the medical treatment and custody case needs to receive medical treatment at the medical treatment and custody facility.

Although it is difficult to recognize that there is a risk of committing murder or committing murder again, the lower court, which is in charge of medical treatment and custody, is illegal.

Judgment

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts on the part of the defendant's case, in particular, the victim D's consistent and specific statement of damage and the statement of seizure protocol [Article 39 of the Investigation Records], and the defendant's statement that "the defendant recognized that the defendant had been provided for criminal conduct and seized at the site by knife knife" (section 39 of the Investigation Records) that "the defendant knife knife knife knife knife knife n

In addition, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental division at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, did not appear to have had the ability to discern things or make decisions, pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act. Furthermore, the lower court did not appear to have determined that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake cannot be accepted.

As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the state of mental disability and the victim.