2. The instant crime is deemed to result in the Defendant’s death by causing injury to his mother, and in light of the substance of the Defendant’s crime of drinking, planting, and timber enzymnas, the Defendant’s act is highly likely to be subject to criticism.

In the process of assaulting the accused (90) who is vulnerable to the crime, the victim of the elderly (90) seems to have suffered a considerable mental impulse and suffering, and eventually, there was a significant result leading to the death of the victim.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant seems to have supported and faithfully lived with the family including the victim, in addition to punishment once by a fine in 2006, prior to the crime of this case.

After committing the instant crime, the Defendant appeared to have denied the commission of the crime in an investigative agency. However, the lower court, instead, recognized his mistake, and submitted a written appeal following the judgment, which led to submission of a written appeal following the judgment, and even in the trial court of the first instance, which was pending as the prosecutor’s appeal, led to a serious reflection of his mistake.

A defendant's family members and his/her assistants want to take the defendant's wife and the defendant seems to have maintained a social ties relationship normally.

Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of these circumstances and other factors of sentencing based on the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair, in light of the following factors: (a) the scope of the recommended sentence based on the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee; (b) the Defendant’s age, gender,

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.