The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios, unreasonable sentencing, and improper exemption from disclosure notification orders);

A. Even if the defendant suffers from mental illness, it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case, and the judgment of the court below that reduced the punishment on the ground of mental disorder of the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

C. It is unreasonable for the lower court to have exempted the Defendant from disclosure and notification orders.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence, namely, that the defendant had been under medical treatment for editing mental disorder continuously for about 10 years prior to the date of the crime of this case, the symptoms of the defendant's symptoms to the extent of receiving hospital treatment over 19 times are not less severe, and that the defendant shows symptoms such as exchange, skin, impulse, impulse behavior, real verification power, disorder of reality, large-person relationship, social decline, sanitation disorder, etc., and that the defendant seems to have reached the crime of this case under extreme mental unstable situation such as exchange rate, exchange rate, etc., the defendant is recognized to have been in the state of having weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, the prosecutor's above assertion of legal principles is rejected.

B. The question of whether the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing has a history of having suspended indictment one time for the same kind of crime, and whether the Defendant reflects the truth is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant has the ability to discern things or make decisions by means of editing mental fission, which is the confession of the crime of this case, and the accused lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.