The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

Defendant

A candidate for medical treatment and custody shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

1. Part of the defendant's case

A. The gist of the grounds for appeal and the applicant for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “defendants”) asserted that the lower court’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the said punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. Determination is the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, the fact that the said crime was committed in a state of mental and physical disability caused by a bipolar disorder, the fact that it does not require considerable expenses to repair the cultural heritage damaged, and the recognition of inspection that manages the said cultural heritage, and the fact that the public official in charge appeals against the Defendant.

However, there is a high possibility of criticism in that the Defendant was sentenced to medical treatment and custody due to the above mental disease, and in particular, on February 5, 2014, a two-year suspended sentence of 10 months for a crime of damage to public goods was sentenced to imprisonment due to a crime of damage to public goods, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 13, 2014, and again committed the instant crime at least 90,000 days, and the Act on the Acceptance of Criminal Crimes is also dangerous.

Furthermore, the degree of illegality is also high in the crime of this case in that cultural properties per se are worth preserving and are almost impossible to restore them to their original condition if they are damaged (not less than two years of statutory imprisonment). Furthermore, there is a high need to prevent the Defendant from committing a crime involving cultural properties as in this case, by isolation from society.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

Considering the above grounds for sentencing and other circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, circumstances surrounding and degree of crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is justified and the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

2...