2. Determination Doctrine, and the crime of this case is about the defendant's ctrine therapy.

In light of the fact that the time of the crime was less than 10 minutes because the victims expressed their desire to commit the crime, and that even after the police officers reported 112, the nature of the crime was poor, and that the defendant continued to commit the crime, even after the police officers did not agree with the victims, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly. However, the defendant recognized all the crime of this case and is in profoundly against the victim. While the defendant did not reach a mental state at the time of the crime of this case, even though he did not reach a mental state at the time of the crime of this case, he seems to have committed the crime of this case while he was subject to sanctions against the victims, and there was no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and there was no other record of criminal punishment. When comprehensively considering the various circumstances such as the character, conduct, intelligence and environment of the defendant as indicated in the argument of this case, the motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, degree of damage, relationship with the victims, circumstances after the crime, family relation, etc., the defendant's assertion that the above punishment is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.