A. The part of the defendant's case (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, probation, community service order 120 hours, and order to attend alcohol treatment 80 hours) sentenced by the court below to the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter "defendants") (limited to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months) is too unfasible.

B. In light of the records and frequency of the Defendant’s existing crimes in the part of the medical treatment and custody claim claim claim, the Defendant has a alcohol dependence; and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., it is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for medical treatment and custody, despite the need to undergo medical treatment at the medical treatment

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined the part of the Defendant’s case by taking account of the positive sentencing factors, such as the following: (a) the Defendant had a history of having been punished by multiple times due to drinking and violence, etc.; (b) the Defendant’s knife, knife, which is dangerous articles for police officers dispatched upon receipt of a report, and obstructed legitimate performance of official duties; (c) the Defendant’s mistake is seriously against himself; (d) there is no punishment exceeding a fine; and (e) there is no punishment exceeding a fine; and (e) the Defendant appears to have made efforts to treat alcohol depression

According to the statement of inquiry about criminal records, etc. (34 pages of evidence records), even though the defendant is deemed to have a criminal record of a suspended sentence or more, considering such circumstances, the court below's sentencing conditions as the defendant's age, criminal records, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime of this case, etc., and the criteria for the suspension of execution based on the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court and the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission can be sufficiently recognized.