The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On December 12, 2013, the summary of the grounds for appeal was issued by this Court No. 2013 High Court Order No. 19925 on December 12, 2013, and the facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged in the instant case are provided by two trucks on the same owner’s moving act, so it should be deemed that there are substantive concurrent relations, not commercial concurrent relations.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, and rendered a judgment of acquittal on the premise that each of the above crimes is in an ordinary concurrent relationship.

2. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the reasons for the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below that the facts charged in this case constitute an ordinary concurrence relationship with the facts charged in summary order is just, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

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

(However, in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, since it is clear that "the Passenger Transport Business Act" in Part 8, 15, and 16 of the decision of the court below has mistakenly stated "the Trucking Transport Business Act", each correction of the decision of the court below is made.