2. The judgment of the court below is acknowledged that each of the crimes of this case committed a crime of this case by an acting driver, who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime before, and on January 14, 2014, by larceny, etc. on the part of the defendant, on the part of the victim H while driving a motor vehicle owned by the victim H, who was faced with a motor vehicle of the victim D driver, and caused the above driver to be driven by the victim F driver, who was in front of the above vehicle, and at the same time, the victim I, J, and K, who was the victim and his passenger, was unable to injure each other, and did not take relief measures, etc., even if they were damaged by the traffic accident that destroyed each of the above vehicles, and committed a crime of this case even during the period of repeated crime after the execution of the sentence was completed on January 14, 2014.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized each of the instant offenses, thereby contravening his mistake; (b) agreed with the victim H; (c) the vehicle and the Defendant’s affiliated company are subscribed to each comprehensive insurance; (d) it appears that the victims would have been able to recover from damage; (e) it appears that the victims would have been able to lead a social life in good faith after completing a long-term flooding life; (b) there is no need for economic circumstances as a basic livelihood recipient; (c) the Defendant’s age, environment, occupation, family relationship; (d) the background leading to each of the instant offenses; and (e) the circumstances leading to each of the instant offenses; and (e) the circumstances subsequent to the commission of the offense, etc.,

Therefore, 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 on the grounds that the appeal is without merit.