The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lawful requirements of arrest or the request period for detention warrant.

In addition, Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Medical Care, Care, etc. can apply to the competent court for the medical care and custody of a person subject to the medical care when he/she needs to receive the medical care and custody.

Section 7 provides that "The court needs to take care of custody as a result of the hearing of the case charged."

When determining the person, a public prosecutor may request the medical treatment and custody application.

"........"

Article 4(7) of the Medical Care and Custody Act, in light of the form, content, etc. of such legal provisions, cannot be deemed as imposing an obligation on a court to request the medical care and custody (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4211, Sept. 14, 2006). The ground of appeal that the lower court’s failure to request the medical care and custody from a prosecutor is illegal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.