1. The argument that the lower court’s judgment’s determination on the Defendant case contains an error of deviation from discretion in sentencing constitutes an unfair allegation of sentencing.

However, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, a final appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on a defendant and a person subject to care and custody (hereinafter “defendant”), the argument that the lower court’s sentencing was unfair is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.

In addition, other reasons stated in the notice of reasons for appeal by the defendant are the grounds for direct appeal by the defendant, or the reasons that the court below did not judge ex officio, and they cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the need for the treatment of the Defendant and the risk of recidivism is recognized, rejected the allegation of the grounds of appeal disputing this.

The judgment below

Examining the grounds for appeal 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 in light of the circumstances alleged in the grounds for appeal.

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