2. The court below decided the above punishment against the defendant on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. The defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of suspension of execution, and the defendant was not only under the victim's injury but also under the record of criminal punishment twice a fine due to the driving of drinking, etc., and thus, the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant in the court of the court below seems to have been sufficiently taken into account when determining the punishment at the court below. In light of the above circumstances, the defendant shows the attitude against the defendant in the net order of the crime of this case, and not only the situation that the parent and the son and the son and 2 children should be supported, but also the court below reached an agreement with the victim, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unfford.

shall not be appointed by a person.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the lower court's appeal is based on the punishment that is set forth in the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving of alcohol) at the end of "1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes" among the application of the law of the judgment below.

Inasmuch as it is evident that the omission was made, the addition ex officio under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is corrected as it is corrected as it is.