The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 4(1) of the Medical Care and Custody Act provides that “A prosecutor may apply to the competent court for the medical care and custody in cases where a person subject to the medical care and custody needs to receive the medical care and custody.” Article 4(7) of the same Act provides that “The court needs to provide the medical care and custody as a result of the examination of the case charged

In determining the person, a prosecutor may request the application for medical care and custody to the public prosecutor.

In light of the form of such provision, Article 4(7) of the Medical Care and Custody Act cannot be deemed as imposing on the court the obligation to request the medical care and custody (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4211, Sept. 14, 2006). In light of such legal principles, the ground of appeal that the lower court’s failure to request the medical care and custody from the prosecutor is illegal is without merit.

In addition, examining various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the record, such as the Defendant’s age and character environment, relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, there is a substantial reason to acknowledge that the determination of the lower court’s punishment, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to 10 years of imprisonment, is extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted by the national defense counsel.

subsection (b) of this section.

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