1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of false accusation among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

On the other hand, the Defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) were in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

All of the arguments to the effect that the court below erred in violation of jurisdiction or in failure to reduce self-denunciation, are not legitimate grounds for appeal, as they are alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant as grounds for appeal or by the court below as being subject to judgment ex officio.

Furthermore, even if examining the record, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in the state of mental disorder at the time of each of the instant crimes, and there is no illegality as alleged above in the lower judgment.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law that deviates from discretion on sentencing is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

2. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment with respect to the medical treatment and custody claim, the lower court needs to receive medical treatment at the medical treatment and custody facility for the reasons indicated in its reasoning.