2. The Defendant, along with C who is the principal offender, committed an injury by saving the body of the victims under the pretext of treating the mental illness of the victims, and detained the victims who resisted, by combining the rap and the traps with the traps, thereby preventing escape.

As a result, the victim G who is a pro-friendly student of the defendant dies from the external shock, and the victim Hdo 8 pactise, etc. is poor and the result of the crime is serious, so it is necessary to punish the defendant corresponding to the crime.

On the other hand, there are circumstances such as the following: (a) the Defendant: (b) was a person who has received several times of hospital treatment due to depression, bipolartic disorder, etc.; (c) was in a state where the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime, such as believing that he/she had been treated through the so-called euthanas that he/she was faced with a telegraphic disorder; (d) the Defendant appears to have received a big mental impulse; (c) the Defendant was a victim G’s friendship with the dead victim who died; (d) currently hospitalized in a hospital to receive treatment for mental illness; and (e) the Defendant

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background leading to the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to fall under the scope of the appropriate punishment according to the Defendant’s responsibility, and thus, is not deemed to be unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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