All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The argument that the Defendant violated the principle of balanced criminal punishment, and the principle of liability due to erroneous determination of facts, constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where the defendant and the defendant for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the medical treatment and custody claim case, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment ordering the Defendant to engage in medical treatment and custody by determining that the necessity of medical treatment and custody and the risk of recidivism is recognized.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the necessity of treatment and the risk of

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