2. The judgment is based on the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant, by taking over the so-called “large vehicle” and operating it without purchasing mandatory insurance; (b) was involved in a traffic accident; and (c) did not enlist in the military without any reason after receiving a notice of convening a call for military force mobilization training; (c) in light of the circumstances of each crime, the fact that the circumstances are not less than that of the crime, and the damage of the traffic accident has not yet been recovered

However, the accident in this case occurred due to the vehicle parked at the edge of the road by shocking the two-wheeled vehicle which was stopped without using the headlight in this part, and the negligence of others seems to have caused the accident. The defendant has a favorable condition for the defendant, such as that the victim was born to his own vehicle immediately after the accident, and that the defendant did not have any criminal record of the same kind or suspended execution, and that he did not have any criminal record of the same kind or suspended execution, and that he did not have any attitude to recognize and reflect all of the mistakes, and all of the sentencing conditions of the argument in this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, change of circumstances after the sentence of the court below, etc., are considered to be within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and thus, it cannot be said that the sentence of the court below is unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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 appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.