Defendant

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant crime committed by the Defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) was committed in the state of mental disorder or mental disability (e.g., the state of drunk or mental disorder).

On June 15, 2020, the Defendant indicated “the instant crime was committed in the state of mental or physical disability (e.g., in the state of mental or physical disability)” printed on the summary of the grounds of appeal in the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant.

The sentence of imprisonment (one year and six months, three years of employment restriction, medical treatment and custody, etc.) imposed on the accused is too unreasonable.

B. The defendant of the case claiming medical treatment and custody does not need to receive medical treatment at the medical treatment and custody facility or risk of recidivism.

Nevertheless, the court below's order of medical treatment and custody is unfair.

2. Determination on the defendant's case

A. On June 15, 2020, the Defendant indicated “the instant crime committed by the Defendant was committed in an insane or a state of mental or physical disability (e.g., in a state of mental or physical disorder)” printed on the summary of the grounds for appeal submitted by the Defendant in the statement of grounds for appeal.

Since the court below has already recognized the defendant's mental disability and sentenced to punishment by statutory mitigation, it is subject to the appellate court's judgment as to whether the defendant was in a state of "non-incompetent" rather than "non-incompetent".

However, there is no specific argument as to the grounds for mental disorder in the statement of grounds for appeal prepared by the Defendant in his own written statement of grounds for appeal, and it is difficult to see the content asserted by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel as “the method of treatment” as the grounds for mental disorder, and even based on the evidence duly examined by the lower court and the appellate court, it is difficult to

The lower court’s determination that recognized only “mental disability” is justifiable.

The defendant's argument of mental health is not acceptable.