In light of the legislative form and content, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Medical Treatment and Custody Act imposes an obligation on the court to request medical treatment and custody under the Medical Treatment and Custody Act. Thus, even if there is an increase in the withdrawal of alcohol on the defendant, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by failing to request medical treatment and custody by the prosecutor after

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mitigation of mental disorder is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

On the other hand, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law in incomplete deliberation as to the determination of punishment is the argument of unfair sentencing. According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate

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