1. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of intimidation and special intimidation against the Victim G, among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of

According to 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a candidate for medical treatment and custody concurrently (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") is sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment ordering medical treatment and custody by determining that the necessity of medical treatment and custody and the risk of recidivism are recognized, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the necessity of treatment and the risk of recidivism beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

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