The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the method of committing the instant crime, the act of the Defendant before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was in the state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime, and therefore, there is no illegality in the lower judgment that did not recognize the mental disorder.

On the other hand, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles such as not considering the circumstances after the crime in sentencing against the defendant is ultimately an allegation 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 is imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair is not legitimate grounds for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the medical treatment and custody claim in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have maintained the first instance judgment, which is in need of medical treatment at the medical treatment and custody facility and judged that there is a risk of recidivism, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no

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