2. Determination

A. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant, as seen above.

In full view of all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in this court, the judgment of the court below was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion, or there is no special change in circumstances that may change the original court’s punishment.

In addition, even if comprehensively considering the sentencing factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unhued.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. In this case, determination of ex officio on an employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities shall be made pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) and Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities. It is determined that there are special circumstances that the Defendant may not issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for the same reason as the lower court stated in the exemption

Therefore, the defendant is exempted from the employment restriction order of the welfare facilities for the disabled pursuant to the proviso of Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare

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