Therefore, the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by murdering two daughters in which the defendant is obligated to protect and rear, and the nature of the crime requires strict punishment for the defendant. However, while considering the fact that the defendant committed suicide while suffering from excessive debts incurred through the Internet lottery tickets and demands for repayment, etc., he was faced with suicide without the defendant, and then he was able to look about his children who grow up without the defendant, and the defendant committed the crime of this case contingently, and it seems that he committed the crime of this case, in depth, and even in the future, he would have suffered more mental suffering than punishment due to the sense of the crime against the death of the victims, the husband of the defendant, who is the father of the victims, is also the wife of the defendant against the defendant, the defendant is the primary offender, etc., the defendant is the primary offender, all kinds of sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Sentencing Committee, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the court below has exceeded discretion.

2. As a prosecutor partly filed an appeal against a prosecuted case, the medical treatment and custody claim is deemed to have filed an appeal regarding the medical treatment and custody claim pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act, however, the prosecutor did not submit any grounds for appeal regarding the medical treatment and custody claim, as well as the ex officio examination of the aforementioned part does not find any grounds for reversal.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and thus, pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 51 of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act, and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.