In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.

A. The sentence of imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The court below's order of medical treatment and custody to the defendant and the applicant for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter "defendants") on the grounds that there is no need for medical treatment and danger of recidivism.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the Defendant’s case, the Defendant’s error is divided into one’s own mistake, and is against himself, and the Defendant grow up in an influenite environment and has been living for the aged, and thus, the Defendant inhales butane gases in the state of mental and physical disability, and the Defendant’s active treatment of his addiction symptoms is revealed, etc. are factors for sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is a crime in which the defendant inhales carbon gas twice and has harmful effects on the people's sound social climate. The defendant has already been sentenced to criminal punishment for the crime of inhaleing hallucinogenic substances several times, and in particular, the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of even though he was sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime, and committed the crime of this case again without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime. In full view of various circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, circumstances after the crime, living environment, etc., the punishment sentenced by the court below is not deemed to be improper and too unreasonable

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion regarding medical treatment and custody case, the court below acknowledged the necessity of medical treatment at the medical treatment and custody facility and recognized the defendant as having the risk of recidivism by considering the defendant's past criminal records, the intake method, the frequency, the time of the crime, and the degree of habits. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are legitimate. Thus, the defendant's objection