2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the part of the defendant case, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As the Defendant and the candidate for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) were not submitted with new sentencing data, the court did not change the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in full view of various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and pleadings.

B. When a partial prosecutor of a medical treatment and custody application case files an appeal against a prosecuted case, the medical treatment and custody application case shall be deemed to have filed an appeal pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act.

However, even if the prosecutor did not submit legitimate grounds for appeal regarding the medical treatment and custody application case and ex officio examination, there is no reason to reverse the part of the judgment below's medical treatment and custody application case.

3. The appeal filed by the prosecutor with the conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 51 of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act.