The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In light of the law of misunderstanding facts related to mental illness in this case and the degree of awareness of the defendant and the person who requested probation order (hereinafter “the defendant”), it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of the crime in this case. However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, thereby reducing the level of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

C. Although the defendant's dismissal of a probation order, such as improper dismissal, is highly likely to repeat a sex crime, it is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the defendant's request for probation order, to exempt the defendant from order to complete a probation order

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misconception of facts related to mental illness, the lower court, based on the certificate of the disabled person against the Defendant and the written investigation before the claim, the Defendant was registered as a person with severe disabilities due to intellectual disability on December 31, 1996, and on October 18, 2019, “No. 13, 2019” appears to be erroneous.

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the process of the instant records and trial, including the Defendant’s attitude to make a statement in the lower court court’s court, the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant was mitigated pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make a decision due to intellectual disorder at the time of each of the instant crimes, on the grounds that it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make a decision.

In light of the Defendant’s intellectual disability degree and time of occurrence, the background and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s statement as to the motive for the instant crime, etc., based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, objects to intellectual disability at the time of the instant crime.