2. Although the amount of the subsidy obtained by the Defendants is reasonable, and the amount of the subsidy has not been returned to the victim at the time of the crime, it is recognized that all the facts charged of this case are recognized and the defendants are not returned, the subsidies obtained by the Defendants are mostly used for the actual repair work; most of the subsidies obtained by the Defendants are used for the defendant A; there is no criminal conviction for the defendant B; the defendant C is a primary offender who has no criminal record; the defendant C is a criminal without a criminal record; the decision should be made in consideration of equity with the case of the first crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act as stated in the judgment of the court below; the defendant's age, sex behavior, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc.; and considering all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and it is dismissed in its entirety under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the court below’s ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as “the Act on the Management of Subsidies” under the former Subsidy Management Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13931, Jan. 28, 2016), and “Article 40 of the previous Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies (wholly amended by Act No. 10898, Jul. 25, 201); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of receipt of subsidies related to the GMG).