All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. As to the facts constituting the crime of Paragraph 7 (2) (No. 2019No. 393) of the lower judgment’s judgment, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the awareness that he would sell a vehicle that is not normal at the time of selling the vehicle to the victim, and thus no intention of fraud or intent of unlawful acquisition is recognized. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty in this part of the charges by taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant made the aforementioned assertion in the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine; (b) the victim’s statement on the process of purchasing the vehicle is relatively consistent; (c) the victim discovered serious engine smoke in the way that he was going into Seoul by accepting the vehicle; and (c) the Defendant: (a) cutting a member of a set in order to install an engine driver while breaking the vehicle; and (b) he seems to have spread gas pockets on the engine smoke; (c) it appears that the Plaintiff was able to cause great hindrance to the safe operation of the vehicle; and (d) the Defendant, having been aware of the circumstances by directly driving the vehicle, appears to have a duty to notify the victim thereof.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is justified, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. The Defendant acknowledges most of the crimes and reflects his or her mistake on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor.

The defendant is a considerable number of victims of fraud in the court below.