The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case and rejected the Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on right to

In addition, in light of the legislative form and content, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Medical Treatment and Custody Act imposes an obligation on a court to request medical treatment and custody under the Medical Treatment and Custody Act, and thus, even if the defendant has any gambling and anti-social personality disorder on the military register, there is no error of law in the lower court’s failure to request medical treatment and custody by a prosecutor after

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may be filed only where the court below rendered a death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the defendant's punishment is unreasonable is unreasonable

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