2. In light of the fact that the accused has been punished several times and that there is a history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the types and methods of each of the crimes of this case, etc., the responsibility for the crime of this case is grave.

However, considering all of the sentencing conditions stated in the pleadings of this case, such as the confession of all crimes, the Defendant’s mistake is divided, there is no history of punishment heavier than the fine, the victims have agreed with the victim, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unfair.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices: Provided, That among the judgment below, the “(special injury point, and choice of imprisonment)” of the pertinent Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime subject to the law is a clerical error of “(special injury point)” and the aggravated concurrent crimes (within the scope of adding up the maximum punishment for concurrent crimes with severe special injury (within the scope of the above two crimes)” is obvious that the aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes (within the scope of adding up the maximum punishment for concurrent crimes with severe special injury) was omitted by mistake. Therefore, it is corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.