The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The fact that the amount of damage caused by the destruction of the instant crime is not significant due to the determination of the grounds for appeal (unfair assertion of form) is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime and reflects on the fact that there was no history of criminal punishment before the date of the instant crime, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under an unstable trial due to the aggravation of the existing stimulative disorder and depression. Since the instant crime, it appears that the Defendant committed the instant crime. The following circumstances include: (a) hospitalized treatment in a mental hospital after the instant case; (b) details of active treatment, such as taking hospital treatment on a regular basis; and (c) full repayment of the amount of damage incurred due to the instant destruction of drugs; and (d) equity between the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (b) details of various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., should be considered as being judged together with the final judgment as stated in the judgment of the lower court. In so doing, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’

2. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, the phrase “1. In the case of detention in the workhouse” under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is apparent that the phrase “Article 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act” is a clerical error under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act, and thus, it is apparent that it is a clerical error under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Thus, the ex officio correction

.