The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the overall circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below (two years of suspended sentence in one year and six months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination: (a) the Defendant again committed an offense under Article 2013 senior group 2629 again while he/she was prosecuted for an offense under each subparagraph of Article 2012 senior group 3151; (b) the Defendant was punished several times due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; (c) a violation of the Road Traffic Act; and (d) a violation of the Road Traffic Act; and (d) the Defendant was unable to recover from damage to, or have not received any equipment from, the victims; (b) the Defendant voluntarily attended the investigative agency immediately after the traffic accident; (c) the Defendant was subject to voluntary investigation; (d) the Defendant agreed with the victim of the thief crime; (d) the victim of the thief crime was not subject to punishment against the Defendant; (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; and (e) other various sentencing conditions, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

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

(However) In accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, among the "application of the law" of the judgment of the court below ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1), since it is apparent that the "Article 268 of the Criminal Act" has been omitted by mistake, it shall be added to the "Article 268 of the Criminal Act" following the "Article 5.4 of the judgment of the court below, and it shall be corrected to delete the "paragraph