expenses as “restitution.” [¶ 34.] It is clear that the judgment incorrectly designated the award as restitution to Sully County, rather than as costs of prosecution. There was no request for restitution at- the sentencing hearing — only costs — and Sully County is not á “victim” in this case entitled to restitution. Restitution is defined in SDCL 23A-28-2(4) as “full or partial payment of pecuniary damages to a victim [.] ” (Emphasis added.) SDCL 22 — 1—2(53) defines victim as “any • natural person against whom the defendant in a criminal prosecution has committed or attempted to commit a crime[.]” (Emphasis added.) Under the facts of this case, Sully County is not a victim, entitled to restitution based upon this definition. State v. Ryyth, 2001 S.D. 50, ¶ 10, 626 N.W.2d 290, 292 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Sprecher, 2000 S.D. 17, ¶¶
holding that the circuit court did not have the statutory or inherent authority to order restitution in part because the statutes did not envision such an obligation holding county does not fit statutory definition of victim under restitution statutes holding that restitution in the full amount of each victims losses does not exceed the statutory maximum holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not