A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to the part not guilty on the grounds), the defendant can be found to have failed to fulfill his/her duty to confirm his/her identity and to take relief measures. Thus, a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence of August, 200, and eight hours of community service order) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, acquitted the Defendant on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the main text) on the grounds of its stated reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court compared with the evidence examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion

B. The vehicles used to determine the unfair argument of sentencing are covered by a comprehensive insurance, and the Defendant agreed with the victims.

The defendant is the first offender.

In full view of the following circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence, etc., and the fact that there is no special circumstance or circumstance to change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment, the lower court’s sentencing is not unfair.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.