The judgment below

The guilty part and the non-guilty part of the violation of the Mental Health Act due to the refusal of discharge.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment of innocence as to the violation of the Mental Health Act based on Defendant E’s failure to state the grounds for restriction on action, among the facts charged, and the appellate court and the final appeal court prior to the return were dismissed, respectively.

Therefore, the verdict of innocence in this part is already separated and finalized, and it is not included in the scope of the trial of the party.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) The Defendants, the director of the mental hospital, committed a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) by the Defendants, were hospitalized in the mental hospital even though they did not obtain any consent of the victim and there was no need to hospitalization of the victim in collusion with one of two persons without any protection.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ("the Act") (joint confinement") among the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) Since the Defendants violated the Mental Health Act following the limitation on freedom of communication, etc. by the Defendants, the Defendants limited the scope of the victim’s communication or interview during hospitalization even without any need for medical treatment, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of violating the Mental Health Act due to the limitation on freedom of communication, etc. among the charges, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

3) Since the Defendants were found not guilty of violating the Mental Health Act due to the Defendants’ refusal to discharge, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendants’ refusal to discharge.

4) The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (for the Defendants, the suspension of sentence of a fine of three million won) is too unhutiled and unreasonable.

B. 1) Article 24 of the Mental Health Act provides that the Defendants’ violations of the law by width (joint confinement) shall be deemed to have been committed.