The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A person who applies for a medical care and custody shall be punished.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable as the Defendant and the person who filed for the medical care and custody (an unfair sentencing, etc.) was sentenced to punishment.

2) The risk of recidivism and the need for medical treatment is not recognized with respect to the treatment and custody.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (unfair sentencing) (two years and six months) is unreasonable as the prosecutor’s office (unfair sentencing) is excessively unhutiled.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted by the court below, and found the following: (i) the Defendant and the claimant for the medical care and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) were diagnosed as having been swornly ill in the mental sentiment during the trial of the instant case; (ii) the Defendant repeated the treatment and release from prison care before the instant case, considering the symptoms of damage on the network, etc. from around December 201, 201, and (iii) the Defendant did not have a high level of violence in the process of being investigated by the investigative agency, and was unable to determine the normal situation; and (iv) there is a high possibility that the Defendant would again stop the similar crime if he did not receive a specialized mental treatment; (iii) the Defendant committed an assault against the victim C, who was put before the instant crime; and (iv) the Defendant’s father and the mother were found to have been suspended after having committed an assault before the instant crime; and (v) it was practically difficult for the young Defendant, who was a male, to stop the treatment or the need to stop the treatment.

The decision was determined.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. Illegal part of sentencing.