A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

In the judgment of the first instance.

(a) The first instance sentence (six months of imprisonment) of the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unfilled and unreasonable;

B. The fact that the Defendant and the person under medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed each of the instant crimes in a state of mental disorder whose real judgment capacity has been deteriorated due to a mental division, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the contents of the instant false report include explosions and terrorism against important facilities causing serious danger to public safety, and thus, it was not inevitable to urgently operate not only a large number of general police soldiers but also professionals such as explosives treatment teams. If there is any actual terrorist in another place at the same time, it seems difficult to cope with the spread of professional manpower capable of coping with it, and the Defendant has a history of having reported a false report even before the instant case, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, circumstances after the offense, the scope of recommended sentence (from April to June 10), etc., the sentence imposed on the Defendant by the first instance court is somewhat uneasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is justified.

2. According to Article 14(2) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act, where a prosecutor files an appeal against a prosecuted case, the medical treatment and custody application case shall be deemed to have been lodged. However, the prosecutor failed to submit any grounds for appeal regarding the medical treatment and custody application case, and even upon examining the judgment of the first instance court, there is no reason to ex officio investigate and reverse this part.

3. If so, the prosecutor’s appeal on the part of the first instance court’s claim for medical treatment and custody is groundless.