The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The argument that the court below erred by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balanced criminal punishment and the principle of responsibility when determining the punishment against the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court in regard to medical treatment and custody claims, the lower court’s determination of the need for medical treatment at a medical treatment and custody facility and the risk of recidivism is justifiable, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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