The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. If the judgment prosecutor filed an appeal against the Defendant’s case, it shall be deemed that an appeal has been filed regarding the medical treatment, custody and custody claim pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Medical Treatment, Custody, etc. Act.

However, among the judgment below, the prosecutor did not submit legitimate grounds for appeal regarding the part where the defendant is placed in the medical care and custody. Even if ex officio, there is no reason to reverse the part of the judgment below's claim for the medical care and custody.

Therefore, there is no reason to appeal concerning the prosecutor's treatment and custody case.

① In light of the circumstances, details, and outcome of each of the instant crimes, the lower court determined a sentence within the scope of sentencing guidelines by taking into account the favorable circumstances that: (a) the matter was very serious and bad; (b) the damage was caused by property damage caused by forest fire-prevention; (c) the victim of attempted murder was expected to suffer considerable damage; and (d) the victim was aware of and suffering from the injury, such as interference with the performance of official duties; and (c) the victim was also aware of the fact that the damage was not recovered; (b) there was no history of crime exceeding a fine; and (b) the Defendant suffered from mental illness of early several years; and (c) each of the instant crimes appears to have committed weak mental illness due to the occurrence of the above mental illness; and (c) the Defendant was a patient suffering from a mental disease and deemed to need mental therapy, and was sentenced to a sentence within the scope of sentencing guidelines.

In full view of all of the facts that the sentencing of the lower judgment as above was pronounced in the trial and that the Defendant’s treatment and custody was sentenced, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

As there is no change in the sentencing conditions that can be seen as being unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, the sentence of the court below is too uneasible.