A. As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents by Defendant A (Bodily Injury) in the judgment of the court below, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that Defendant A’s negligence caused the injury to the victim by obtaining the victim’s rocketing car driven by Defendant A.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. Each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for four months, a stay of execution for two years, Defendant B: fine of three million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts in light of the records, the court below's determination that this part of the facts charged was not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence of this case alone based on the judgment of the court below was caused by Defendant A's negligence, is just, and the court below did not submit new evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the prosecutor

B. According to the instant argument and record on the assertion of unfair sentencing, each of the lower judgment appears to have been appropriately determined by fully considering the various grounds for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor, and there is no special circumstance to ex post facto change the sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.