In addition, an appeal by a person subject to medical treatment and custody, a person subject to attachment order, a person subject to probation order and a prosecutor.

A. The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable for the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody, the requester for attachment order, and the requester for probation order (hereinafter “defendants”).

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is so unfased that it is unfair, and the lower court’s dismissal of the Medical Treatment and Custody Claim is unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the part of the defendant case, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect this.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). No new sentencing data is submitted to the Defendant, and there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment.

The circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor as the grounds for appeal are considered to have taken into account all the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant.

In full view of the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The lower court on the part of the medical treatment and custody claim claim case: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) the Defendant was hospitalized and released from a hospital for ten years from April 6, 2015 to July 1, 2019 after having been detained in the instant case due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Robbery), etc. of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., to which he/she was detained in the instant case; (c) the Defendant was forced to commit any specific crime while being detained in the instant case; and (d) the Defendant was somewhat difficult to restrain impulse due to the mental retardation of the Do; (d) the doctor D belonging to the medical treatment and custody center, which has a mental diagnosis of the Defendant, is unlikely to be recovered through medical treatment; (e) the Defendant’s continuous management through certain education and pharmacologic treatment facilities is important;