1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, in light of the evidence, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of indecent act by force among the facts charged in the instant case is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding

According to the records, the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") appealed from the judgment of the first instance, and only argued the misconception of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for appeal, and unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, pursuant 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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the

2. As to a medical treatment and custody application case, the period of confinement of a person under medical treatment and custody in a medical treatment and custody facility shall not be determined by judgment, but shall not exceed the prescribed period under Article 16(2) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act, the assertion that the period of medical treatment and custody for the accused is too harsh shall not be a legitimate ground

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