2. In light of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on April 11, 2013, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months on the same crime on November 28, 2012, the judgment of the grounds for appeal of this case is highly likely to be subject to criticism in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime only four days and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on April 11, 2013.

However, on the other hand, the defendant, after committing the crime, revealed himself/herself to the staff of the hospital, and is arrested by requesting the police to report his/her crime to the staff of the hospital, and the defendant expressed that he/she would not commit the same crime again while reflecting his/her wrongness by living in custody for more than four months. The defendant was punished for the same kind of crime around 2002 and did not commit the same crime for about ten years before the judgment became final and conclusive (the crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive is limited to one-time medication), the above crime and the crime of this case should be considered at the same time as the crime of this case are to be judged, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as stated in the arguments and the records of this case, the prosecutor's assertion is not accepted, and thus, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is excessively unreasonable.

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.