2. The following facts are favorable: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant agreed with the limited company specialized in E.S. Asset-backed Securitization that the Defendant acquired the claim from the injured party at the lower court; (c) the instant crime is in a concurrent relationship between the injury for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act; and (d) the Defendant should be judged at the same time in consideration of equity with the case of concurrent crimes; and (e) there is an old mother to support the Defendant

On the other hand, the crime of this case is disadvantageous to the defendant, even though the defendant borrowed the purchase fund from the damaged person for the purchase of the vehicle and set a mortgage on the vehicle, concealing the above vehicle, and the crime is not good, and the defendant has a number of different criminal records.

In light of the above circumstances and the court below’s determination of punishment by fully taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant as above, and the community service order may be performed through weekends or holidays through consultation with the Protection Monitoring Office, so it does not seem impossible for the defendant to implement the community service order within the extent that the defendant does not interfere with his/her livelihood. In addition, in full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the argument of this case, such as the defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for the crime, motive for the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

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