The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

A candidate for medical treatment and custody shall be punished by medical treatment and custody.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant and the candidate for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") made confession of and seriously against the instant crime, the defendant failed to have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental and behavioral disorder at the time of the instant crime, and the fact that the damaged goods of robbery were returned to the victim, resulting in the recovery of damage, etc. shall be favorable or considered to the defendant.

However, on the other hand, while the Defendant was getting on a taxi to kill the victim C, who is a deadly weapon, using the knife, and was driving the taxi in a drinking state that is prohibited from driving the taxi by threatening the victim E, which is a taxi driver, and thus, the circumstances and the nature of the crime are very heavy in light of the circumstances of the crime and the details of the crime, and even though the Defendant had been punished several times as violent crimes, he went to the crime of this case. In addition, the crime of this case in particular, since the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and eight months due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapons, etc.), it is inevitable to punish the Defendant significantly equivalent to his responsibility, in light of the fact that there is a great possibility of criticism.

In light of the aforementioned various circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive or background of the crime, means and method of the crime, contents and result of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.