1. The assertion that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on sentencing conditions constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

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 may be filed on the ground

Therefore, in this case where the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The Defendant stated in the statement of the grounds of appeal that “the instant crime was committed in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder (the state of mental disorder or mental disorder)” and did not state specific reasons therefor. Thus, this assertion is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to engage in medical treatment and custody, deeming that the need for medical treatment and custody and the risk of recidivism exists.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower judgment did not err as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The Defendant’s final appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.