The punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of probation, three years of community service, 300 hours of pharmacologic, and 40 hours of pharmacologic treatment) that the court below sentenced the defendant is too unfluent and unfair.

Judgment

Considering the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months, and three years of the suspension of the execution despite the fact that he had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for psychotropic drugs, and that the Defendant again committed the instant crime of the same kind since one year has not passed since the period of the suspension of the execution was expired, and there is a high risk of causing serious social harm, and thus, there is a high possibility of criticism. The Defendant continued to deny the instant crime until the second trial date of the lower court, and subsequently led to the Defendant’s confession at the latest, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, family relation, criminal record, character and conduct, occupation, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is deemed to be too unreasonable, and thus, the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, since the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is deemed to be too unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act for lack of reason.