The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 4(1) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act provides that “A prosecutor may file a request for medical treatment and custody with the competent court where a person subject to medical treatment and custody needs to receive medical treatment and custody,” and Article 4(7) of the same Act provides that “The court may request a prosecutor to file a request for medical treatment and custody when it is deemed necessary to receive medical treatment

Article 4(7) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act cannot be deemed as imposing an obligation on a court to request a medical treatment and custody application, in light of the form, content, etc. of the provisions of the above Act.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below did not err by failing to request the prosecutor for medical treatment and custody for each of the crimes of this case while reducing mental and physical disability of the defendant in light of the above legal principles.

2. The argument of misunderstanding of facts as to sentencing conditions in the ground of appeal is ultimately the argument of unfair sentencing.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

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