2. Although the result of the injury suffered by the victim is relatively more severe (as a result of the instant crime, this case’s crime was committed for about 5 weeks) and there was a neglect to deny the instant crime and make efforts to recover damage for about 1 year and 6 months until the date of closing argument in the trial. Defendant A was punished by the same kind of crime and was punished by a suspended execution once, and Defendant B was punished by a fine for the same kind of crime, and Defendant B was punished by the same kind of crime only once, etc., the Defendants were disadvantageous to the Defendants. However, the Defendants were aware of their mistake at the date of closing argument in the trial. Defendant B deposited KRW 2 million for the victim at the trial. The instant crime was a contingent crime that began with the wind of the victim first; Defendant B deposited KRW 2 million for the victim; the Defendants deposited KRW 7.5 million for the victim, including the above KRW 2 million, in consideration of other favorable circumstances for the Defendants, the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, motive, and motive of the instant crime, etc., the motive and circumstances of the instant crime.

3. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the appeal is groundless.