1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case involving a prosecuted case, 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 is permitted. Thus, in this case where the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “defendant”) rendered a minor sentence, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant was in need of medical treatment at a medical treatment and custody facility and the risk of recidivism, and imposed the Defendant on the medical treatment and custody application.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, even if the circumstances alleged in the grounds of appeal are considered.

In addition, medical treatment and custody under the Medical Treatment and Custody Act is a so-called security measure aimed at preventing recidivism and promoting rehabilitation into society, and it cannot be said that it is identical to the punishment. Thus, the medical treatment and custody at the same time was imposed on a certain criminal.

Therefore, it cannot be said that it violates the prohibition of double punishment stipulated in the Constitution.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, on November 12, 2009.