The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the prosecutor's appeal (unfair form) of the crime of this case is that the defendant found the victim who was in a civil dispute and thereby inflicted injury on the victim and damaged the victim's cargo vehicle while driving the cargo vehicle. This constitutes a retaliation crime against the victim. The crime falls under the crime of retaliation against the victim and it is not very good that the crime is committed. The damage suffered by the defendant and the victim could lead to a serious accident due to the gas supply of each cargo vehicle, the damage suffered by the crime of this case is not significant, and the defendant did not go against the mistake while making a defense that makes it difficult for him to understand. In light of the above, the sentence of the court below that sentenced the community service order for 2 years of suspended sentence and 120 hours of imprisonment for one year is unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following facts: (a) the degree of injury suffered by the victim and the damage of the cargo of the victim caused by the instant crime committed by the Defendant is relatively limited; (b) the Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment except a fine of KRW 1,00,000 due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court on April 27, 2015; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, relationship with the victim, and circumstances after the crime, even if considering the circumstances alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court’

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the application of the law of the court below, it is clear that the "1. Commercial concurrence" was omitted by mistake in the decision of the court below concerning the selection of punishment and the crime of causing special property damage," and thus, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (2) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.