Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by both medical care and custody applicants and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy or unhued so as to be unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant and the person holding the custody center for the treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have any history of criminal punishment, and they are in profoundly against the confession of each of the instant crimes.

The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case under the state of mental and physical weakness due to Cho Jae-in, etc.

The defendant seems to require a strong punishment and mental therapy.

However, each of the crimes of this case is that the defendant, carrying a brick, inflicted an injury on the victim F and was in a house owned by the victim H that he had resided.

If a fire was not extinguishing early, additional damage could have occurred.

The Defendant did not make any particular effort to recover damage.

The victims are punished by the defendant.

In addition to these circumstances, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, and all the sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments and the new circumstances that enable the change of the lower court’s punishment in the trial; (b) there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court; and (c) where the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of the following: (a) the sentence imposed by the lower court was deemed to be adequate, too excessive or excessive, or it was beyond the reasonable scope of discretion,

It does not seem that it does not appear.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

B. Since the Defendant and the prosecutor appealed on the part of the medical care and custody, the part of the medical care and custody claim pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Medical Care and Custody Act is deemed as filing an appeal.

However, the defendant and the prosecutor.