1. The argument that the defendant's case contains an error of law that deviates from the limits of discretion in the judgment of sentencing constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 the defendant and the defendant for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment ordering medical treatment and custody, based on the determination that the need for medical treatment and custody and the risk of recidivism is recognized, to the Defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err 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 necessity of treatment and the risk of recidivism.

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