The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misapprehension of the legal doctrine (part of the crime) that a defendant assaultss a victim while on board a taxi while traveling the taxi and assaults the victim after stopping the taxi is an act of the same kind, and the act of inflicting bodily injury on a driver while driving the taxi repeatedly by the same intent and of inflicting bodily injury after stopping is a single comprehensive crime, and is established only for the crime of inflicting bodily injury on a driver.

In the case of injury before and after the taxi stopping, there are substantive competition relationships.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes.

B. The judgment of the court below that recognized only the driver's assault and acquitted the victim of the injury on the ground that there was no proof of injury even if all the facts charged about the injury were proved according to the medical certificate of injury submitted by mistake of the facts (not guilty part).

(c)

The sentence of the court below which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine (part on the number of crimes) by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence

1. Recognizing the circumstances as stated in the judgment of the number of crimes, and on this basis, the act of the defendant assaulted the victim before stopping the taxi and the act of assaulting the victim after getting off the taxi is in a substantive concurrent relationship.

The decision was determined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as asserted by the prosecutor.

This part of the Prosecutor's argument is not accepted.

3. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts (the part not guilty of injury) recognized the circumstances as stated in the judgment and based on this, in full view of the adopted evidence, as follows: “the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes before and after the stopping of a taxi (the driver’s assault, etc.)” and “3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the driver’s assault, etc.) after the unloading of a taxi