2. The judgment has the history of punishing the defendant as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he committed the crime without being aware of the fact that he committed the crime of this case, even though he was under the period of suspension of execution due to property damage and insult, etc., but on the other hand, he recognized his mistake and reflects the defendant's intention to prevent the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act by disposing of the vehicle after the crime of this case, the defendant's health and economic situation are not good, and in addition, considering the motive and background leading to the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior after the crime of this case, the 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, ex officio pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the criminal facts of the judgment of the court below shall be deleted, and Article 3 (3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act shall be corrected by correcting "Article 3 (3) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act" to "Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act."