The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the lower court rendered a reduction of mental and physical disability to the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (12 years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

C. The part of the lower court’s claim for attachment order is that the location tracking device attachment order (10 years) issued by the lower court is too short and unfair.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. On the grounds of appeal, ex officio determination of legal principles as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the public prosecutor asserts that the grounds of appeal are the grounds of appeal and states that it is unreasonable for the court below to recognize the crime of this case in the state of mental and physical disability. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to mental and physical disability and the grounds of appeal

Meanwhile, the prosecutor asserts that the court below erred in misunderstanding legal principles on the date of the trial of the court at the trial of the court. The argument of misapprehension of legal principles on mitigation of the above persons is a new argument after the time when the appeal period is not timely, and there is no reason to reverse the judgment of the court below which has to reduce the number of persons with mental disability and the number of persons with a disability.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to mitigation of mental and physical disability in comparison with the lower judgment, the lower judgment that determined that the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental and physical disability due to brain diseases, damage, and functional disorder, is just and acceptable, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mitigation of mental and physical disability.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing is at the site of gambling by the Defendant.