The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant, at the time of each of the crimes in this case, has weak ability to discern things or make decisions, the lower court recognized that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder and mitigated punishment pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the state of mental disorder of the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the circumstances properly explained by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine on mental and physical disability, the Defendant is deemed to have been in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, such as the background of the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. The determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of the sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the process of the first instance sentencing hearing and the sentencing criteria, or it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing judgment as it is, comprehensively taking account of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing.