1. Examining the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the method of committing the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, with respect to the Defendant as to the instant case, it does not seem that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime. Therefore, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether the Defendant was defective, by violating the rules of evidence

In addition, under 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 allowed. Thus, the determination of the sentence is unreasonable in this case where

The argument that there is an error of deviation from the discretionary authority for sentencing is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The remaining grounds of appeal are also the same.

2. As long as the defendant files an appeal against a prosecuted case regarding a medical treatment and custody application case, the appeal is deemed to have been filed regarding the medical treatment and custody application case, but the appellate brief does not state the grounds for appeal and does not state the grounds for appeal.

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