The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the past, the defendant of mistake of facts has received medical treatment with a sacrific disease in the past, but the degree of such treatment has not been serious, and criminal punishment for another case is subject to criminal punishment, there is no fact that statutory punishment has been mitigated as a mental disorder

In addition, the defendant undergoes an investigation by the prosecutor's office to accurately disclose his opinion.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and confiscation) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant suffered from her on-site illness that shows symptoms, such as summons, loss, etc. at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, and was incapable of discerning things or making decisions due to such mental disorder.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

The Defendant received hospitalized treatment from October 10, 2014 to December 31, 2014.

From January 10, 2015 to March 2, 2016, 15 were provided with outpatients over 15 times, but re-patients were provided from March 5, 2016 to June 9, 2016, and 7 times from June 17, 2016 to September 23, 2016.

Since September 5, 2019, after the Defendant was discharged from other cases, the Defendant received seven-time outpatients treatment from September 5, 2019 to December 2019, immediately before the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes.

In light of the above progress of the Defendant’s medical treatment, the Defendant shows the fact that the symptoms of her on-the-job illness were frightened, and even after receiving hospital treatment, the Defendant repeatedly aggravated the treatment and received hospital treatment.

In particular, the defendant was confined for a considerable period immediately before the crime of this case and started medical treatment after being released from prison.