Defendant

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

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the candidate for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “defendants”) in the part of the instant case is too unreasonable in view of the following: (a) the sentence imposed by the lower court (Article 1, 2-b, 3-B, 3-4: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years; 10-month, 10 months, etc.) is too unreasonable in view of the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of each of the instant offenses and reflects his depth; and (b) cooperation with the investigation of another person’s narcotics crimes.

Therefore, considering the fact that the nature of each of the crimes in this case is very serious, that the criminal records of the defendant have already been four times, that the defendant commits the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and the crime of bodily injury, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and the remainder of the crime in the judgment of the court below, the defendant again committed the crime of phiphone-phone medication during the period of suspension of detention for operation at the court below, and that the defendant escaped again during the period of suspension of detention at the court below, and other various sentencing conditions and sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing committee of the Supreme Court, the sentence of the court below does not seem to be unreasonable, even though considering the fact that the defendant actively cooperates in the investigation of other narcotics crimes and actively expressed the intention

2. The part of the medical treatment and custody application case is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the medical treatment and custody application case in accordance with Article 14(2) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act inasmuch as the Defendant filed an appeal regarding a prosecuted case. However, the Defendant or his/her defense counsel did not submit any grounds for appeal regarding the medical treatment and custody application case, as well as the ex officio examination of the aforementioned part

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable.