The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, each of the crimes of this case committed by the Defendant with a clear perception of surrounding circumstances or the meaning of one’s own behavior. Since it is not attributable to the realization of the symptoms of Cho Jae-gu, such as a lusium or exchange hall, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions, the lower court deemed that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder caused by mental illness, such as a lusium, and thus, has legal mitigation. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to mental disorder

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant was not in a state of mental disability at the time of the instant crime of unfair sentencing, as well as the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes similar to the Defendant, which were committed by the Defendant, with the same kind of obstruction of performance of official duties as the instant case, and thus, the risk of re-offending is considerable. Each of the instant crimes was committed by the Defendant, instead of participating in the process and motive, and there are no circumstances to consider in the process and motive of the crime, and most of the victims did not reach an agreement, the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is deemed unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine the misapprehension of the legal principle’s assertion, and examine various circumstances indicated in the record, including a statement of opinion (100 pages of the trial record) and a medical certificate (101 pages of the trial record) with respect to the defendant submitted by the defense counsel at the court below, since the defendant was in a state of weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to mental illness, such as the injury or illness at the time of each of the crimes in this case, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principle as to mental disorder

B. The first trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing are applied.