2. The judgment is based on the following circumstances: (a) although the Defendant had already been punished for imprisonment for several times due to the same crime; (b) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the repeated crime period; (c) the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant crimes under the circumstance where he was not fully protected and managed by his family members, etc.; (d) the Defendant’s mistake is deemed to have been committed; (e) the Defendant was erroneous; and (e) the victims agreed with the victim D; and (e) the victims appears not to have relatively heavy weighted damage incurred due to each of the instant crimes; and (e) other circumstances such as the motive and background leading up to each of the instant crimes, the circumstances before and after the instant crimes, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, and family relationship, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unjustifiable 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.

(However) Of the facts of the lower judgment, the first head of 2014 Highest 780 of the Criminal Procedure Rule does not state that “the Defendant has a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions due to a mental retardation disorder of class 2,” and it is clear that “Article 319” in the “Article 319(1) is a wrong entry” in the “Article 319(1)” in the “Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure” in the application of the statutes. Thus, the addition and correction are made ex officio under Article 25(1)

.