The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case and the part of the medical treatment and custody application case.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment and five years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable for the Defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody, the requester for attachment order, or the requester for probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that dismissed the Defendant’s request for medical treatment and custody, attachment order, and probation order, even though the Defendant’s request for medical treatment and custody, attachment order, and probation order, and the risk of recidivism is recognized, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor as to the part of the defendant's case.

The lower court applied Article 167(1) of the Criminal Act (legal penalty: imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years) to the facts constituting an offense (the crime of general fire-fighting) under Article 167(1) of the 2019Gohap221 of the judgment of the lower court.

However, Article 167(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (legal penalty: imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding seven million won) shall apply to the above criminal facts, but the lower court erred by applying Article 167(1) of the Criminal Act to the judgment that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In this respect, the part of the judgment of the court below on the defendant case can no longer be maintained.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the lower court’s judgment on the part of the medical treatment and custody claim claim portion: (a) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone requires the Defendant to be treated at the medical treatment and custody facility

It is difficult to readily conclude that there is a risk of recidivism unless medical treatment and custody or medical treatment and custody exists, and otherwise, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

① According to the result of the mental assessment against the Defendant, the Defendant’s “unexpected spile and other mental disorder” shall be deemed to be “unexpileed spile and other mental disorder.”