The judgment below

Part of a medical treatment order shall be reversed.

The request for medical treatment order of this case is dismissed.

The judgment below

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court did not recognize mental and physical disorder even if the Defendant and the respondent for a medical treatment and custody order and the respondent for a medical treatment and custody order as well as the respondent for a medical treatment and custody order and the respondent for a medical treatment and custody order (hereinafter referred to as “defendant”) filed the instant crime under the circumstance that the Defendant and the respondent for a medical treatment and custody order and the respondent for a medical treatment order are unable to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime. The lower court’s determination is unlawful.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one hundred years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(3) Although there are special circumstances under which disclosure or notification of personal information should not be disclosed or notified to the illegal defendant of the disclosure or notification order, it is improper for the court below to order the defendant to disclose or notify personal information.

(4) The lower court’s issuance of an attachment order to the Defendant is unreasonable, although the Defendant was not likely to repeat a crime.

(5) In light of risks, side effects, etc. of unfair sexual impulse medication, it is unreasonable for the court below to issue a medical treatment order to the defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) In light of the content of the instant crime committed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder argument, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was in the state of having different objects or lack of ability to make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

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

(2) As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, each of the instant crimes is very poor in light of the subject, frequency, details, etc. of the crime.

In addition, the defendant is excluded from the crime of Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court below during the period of repeated crime.