Whether a crime may be punished by medical treatment and custody even if the crime is committed regardless of mental disorder.

Medical treatment and custody under Article 8(1)1 and 2 of the Social Protection Act is imposed when a person, as a mentally handicapped person, who is not punishable under Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act, commits a crime corresponding to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment, or a person to whom punishment is mitigated under Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, commits a crime corresponding to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment, and is deemed to have the risk of re-offending. Therefore, the crime committed shall be reduced due to the mental and physical conditions of the military register which is the cause of such mental and physical disorder, and shall not be subject to medical treatment and custody when the person commits a crime regardless

Article 8 (1) of the Social Protection Act

Applicant for Custody

Prosecutor

Attorney Kang Han-hoon

Daegu High Court Decision 85No210 delivered on December 3, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Medical treatment and custody under Article 8(1)1 and 2 of the Social Protection Act is imposed when a person, as a mentally handicapped person, who is not punishable under Article 10(1) of the Criminal Act, commits a crime corresponding to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment, or a person whose punishment is mitigated under Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, commits a crime corresponding to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment and acknowledges that there is a danger of recidivism. Therefore, the crime committed should be reduced due to the mental and physical conditions of the military register which is the cause of such mental and physical disorder, and a person who commits a crime regardless of mental and physical disorder shall not be subject to medical treatment and custody.

Therefore, the first instance court's judgment maintained by the court below on the same purport should have the risk of repeating a crime when the person subject to review is subject to medical treatment and custody pursuant to Article 8 (1) 2 of the Social Protection Act, and the risk of repeating a crime at this time requires a considerable probability of preventing the crime by causing the state of mental disorder again. While the defendant was in a state of mental disorder by causing mental disorder, the person subject to review cannot be deemed to have committed any dynamic crime due to livering for the past 7-8 years since livering a liver symptoms, and the crime described in the written request for protective custody of this case cannot be deemed to have been committed during the liver period or 1-2 hours after the livering period. This cannot be deemed to have been committed by the person subject to protective detention under the premise that the serious conflict due to livering from home, neighbors, and society, and the form expressed in the maid, and thus, it cannot be justified to dismiss the claim for medical treatment and custody theory of this case.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)