Defendant

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

1. The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, etc.) against the accused and the candidate for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “defendants”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the part of the defendant's case, the defendant prepared a wooden monm with a length of 95 cm and diameter of 6 cm in a police station by visiting the police station, and left a computer monitor in the public service center of the police station using the month of the month and head in the mone, which led to the defendant's leaving a computer monitor in the police station, and was used in the side and head part of the victim police officer D, even though the victim was used on the floor due to an injury such as brain dust at the above price, the defendant escaped, was not recovered, and there was no recovery from damage. The defendant ordered and manufactured 85 cm in the blade length, 7 cm in the blade width, and stored for a long time without the permission of the chief of the police station.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against the defendant, and that it was the first offender, and that it was committed in the state of mental state with mental disability is favorable to the defendant.

As above, considering comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions stipulated by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and consequence, as well as the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and in addition to the fact that no particular change of circumstances is found in relation to the sentencing conditions after the sentence of the lower judgment, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable to the extent that it is deemed that the sentence imposed by the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

B. 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 pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act inasmuch as the Defendant filed an appeal regarding the prosecuted case. However, the grounds for appeal on this part are examined and reversed ex officio.