2. Determination is recognized that the Defendant had had a record of criminal punishment several times due to a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act or a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-exclusive license), and during that period, the Defendant was sentenced to a continuous fine for the above crime on April 25, 2014, and was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months, a suspended sentence of 2 years, etc., and was sentenced to a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act on April 25, 2014.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime and repeated use of a vehicle for the artificial test business that he operated during that period, it seems that the Defendant would not repeat again after the instant crime, such as the closure of the business and the disposal of the vehicle, etc., and that there was no additional damage, such as traffic accidents, etc. due to the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, environment, occupation, family relationship, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., as a whole, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unreasonable as it is too unreasonable, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, environment, occupation, family relationship, as well as the circumstances leading to the instant crime; and (b) the circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc. before and after the crime.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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

[However, pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “1. A previous conviction in the judgment of the court below” is added to “a previous conviction in the judgment of the court below and a report on the result of confirmation”]