1. Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment in relation to the Defendant case, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of attempted murder 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 misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the intention of murder, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the deliberation of the sentencing grounds is ultimately unfair.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, a final appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair in this case where the defendant and the person who applied for the treatment and custody (hereinafter “defendant”) have been sentenced to a more minor punishment is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, requires the Defendant to receive medical treatment at a medical care and custody facility and risk of recommitting a crime.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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