Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant case 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant and Applicant for Medical Treatment and Custody (hereinafter “Defendant”).

(2) As indicated in the lower judgment, there was no fact that the Defendant sent obscene letters to the victim B (a 43 years of age) as indicated in the lower judgment’s crime. The Defendant issued a tax invoice without any doubt by G requesting the issuance of the tax invoice, etc., and divided and remitted the remitted money from H Hospital to any other person, but it did not seem to constitute an offense, and this was not considered to have been a passive use for the president of H Hospital and KFG. (a 1 year of imprisonment, etc.) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court erred by ordering the Defendant to receive medical treatment and custody in the absence of the need to receive medical treatment or the risk of recidivism at the medical treatment and custody facility.

2. Determination of the accused case

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using a communication medium) shall not be deemed to be doubtful that the probative value or credibility of a confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession made by the accused in the court of original instance and in the investigative agency differs from the legal statement in the appellate court. In determining the credibility of a confession, in consideration of the following: (a) the content of the confession’s statement itself has an objective rationality; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) the background leading up to the confession, and (d) the circumstances leading up to the confession other than the confession, which conflict with or conflict with the confession, it shall be determined as to whether there was a situation where there was a reasonable doubt in the motive or process of the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001; 201Do2064, Mar. 12, 2002).