The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 4(1) of the Medical Care and Custody Act provides that “A prosecutor may apply to the competent court for the medical care and custody in cases 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 the medical care and custody as a result of the examination of the case charged

In determining the person, a prosecutor may request the application for medical care and custody to the public prosecutor.

In light of the form of such provision, Article 4(7) of the Medical Care and Custody Act cannot be deemed as imposing on the court the obligation to request the medical care and custody (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4211, Sept. 14, 2006). In light of such legal principles, the ground of appeal that the lower court’s failure to request the medical care and custody from the prosecutor is illegal is without merit.

In addition, even if examining the record, the lower court did not err by violating the relevant statutes, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of an unfair sentencing shall be allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is pronounced.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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