A. The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact that a mistake of fact-finding defendant was punished for the same kind of crime in 2007, although there was a fact that the mitigation of mental disorder caused by mental division was recognized, it seems that the situation was improved, such as there was no specific criminal power thereafter, the motive and attitude of the crime in this case, the defendant is very general, the circumstance of the crime in this case is constantly memory, and the court below recognized mental disorder without any specific and objective grounds, such as mental sentiment against the defendant, etc. It is difficult to find that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime in this case. Nevertheless, the court below recognized the mental disability of the defendant and mitigated the punishment on the ground of this, there was an error of law of misunderstanding of facts

2. Determination

A. The records of this case revealed through the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the following circumstances: ① the defendant was subject to criminal punishment for violent crimes in 2008, and the statutory punishment was mitigated as it was recognized; ② the defendant was given birth of mental fission but was not subject to special treatment due to the above case; ② the defendant appeared to have received treatment but could not continue to have been given due to the above case; ② the symptoms, such as the symptoms of the known weather, excessive accident, and the accident that occurred during December 2019; ③ the defendant was diagnosed, such as the symptoms of the known age under "the symptoms, etc."; ③ the fact that the defendant was diagnosed with the appearance of the main body before and after the crime; or the fact that the defendant, with himself, took an abnormal behavior, such as flaging the movement with a heavy distance, it is justified to recognize the mental and physical disability of the defendant and to take measures to reduce it as a legal reason.

The lower judgment did not err by mistake of facts, as alleged by the prosecutor.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.