The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) corresponds to the determination of hospitalization of a mental medical institution. The determination of hospitalization of a mental medical institution falls under the pre-determination of the position of salary, and the position of salary continued to be hospitalized without being equipped with documents confirming whether the person is without protection according to the authority conferred by the director of the mental medical

As can be seen, there was an implied agreement between the principal and the principal to have the document corrected and then received the document.

As such, there is a conspiracy between the defendant and the defendant.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 24(1) and (2) of the former Mental Health Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14224, May 29, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), the lower court determined that the consent of two persons without protection and the medical specialists of mental health are necessary to be hospitalized as the requirements for hospitalization by a person without protection. If meeting these requirements, the lower court determined that the subject of hospitalization of a mentally ill person is the director of the mental medical institution, etc., and that the person obligated to obtain confirmation that the person without protection was a person without mental health care at the time of hospitalization is also the director of the mental medical institution, etc., and that the person responsible for obtaining consent to hospitalization is also the director of the lower court’s medical institution, etc., and that the mentally ill person and the defendant, who is a mental patient, is not obligated to submit legal documents to the hospital directly or indirectly, and that he/she is not obligated to obtain consent to be hospitalized from the hospital.