The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the medical care and custody criminal defendant repeatedly commits the larceny due to the impulse disorder, it is difficult to lower the risk of recidivism only with the sentence of imprisonment to the criminal defendant.

Therefore, the defendant should be sentenced to custody for the defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 4(1) of the Medical Care and Custody Act provides that “Where a person subject to the medical care and custody needs to receive the medical care and custody, the prosecutor may apply for the medical care and custody to the competent court.

Since the Medical Care and Custody Act provides that a prosecutor shall file a claim for the medical care and custody, this assertion cannot be used as a ground for appeal in this case where the prosecutor does not file a claim for it.

ex officio, the lower court’s assertion that it is unlawful for the prosecutor to request the medical care and custody for the reason that the prosecutor’s request for the medical care and custody is not required. However, Article 4(7) of the Medical Care and Custody Act requires the court to conduct the medical care and custody upon the deliberation

When determining the person, a public prosecutor may request the medical treatment and custody application.

In light of the form of the provision, Article 4(7) of the Medical Care and Custody Act does not mean that Article 4(7) of the Medical Care and Custody Act imposes an obligation on a court to request the medical care and custody (Supreme Court Decision 2017Do11802 Decided September 21, 2017), and furthermore, there is a need for the medical care and custody of the defendant.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court shall sufficiently take into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant within a reasonable scope.