All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the defendant case

A. As to the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”), the self-denunciation was in excess of the grounds for voluntary mitigation.

Even if it does not necessarily need to be taken into account in sentencing, the argument in the grounds of appeal purporting that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on self-denunciation by failing to mitigate the amount of punishment accordingly even though the court below accepted it, cannot be accepted.

In light of the circumstances such as the background and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, which can be known by the record, the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived at the time of the instant crime.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the lower court, which did not recognize mental and physical loss, did not err by violating the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Medical Treatment, Care, etc. may apply to the competent court for the medical treatment, custody, where a person subject to the medical care and custody needs to receive the medical care and custody.

Article 4(7) of the same Act provides that “The court needs to provide medical care and custody as a result of the examination of a case charged.”

When determining the person, a prosecutor may request the application for medical treatment and custody.

In light of the legislative form, Article 4(7) of the Medical Care and Custody Act cannot be deemed as imposing an obligation on a court to request the medical care and custody (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4211, Sept. 14, 2006). Therefore, the grounds of appeal that the lower court did not require the prosecutor to request the medical care and custody to the effect that the prosecutor did not request the medical care and custody and did not order the medical care and custody cannot be accepted.

In addition, the sentencing indicated in the record, such as the age character and character environment of the defendant, the relationship to victims, the motive, means and result of each of the crimes in this case.