2. In the judgment of the court below, the crime of violating the Automobile Management Act was committed not only undermining order in the distribution of automobiles by selling and selling a vehicle which has not been registered as a normal transfer, but also undermining the quality of the crime; the defendant's trading period and frequency is not much sufficient; the period and frequency of the crime of violating the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users Act; the period and scale of the crime of violating the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users Act are not small; however, the defendant is against the defendant's acknowledgement of each crime of this case; the defendant was detained for more than three months; the defendant was investigated as the crime of this case; the defendant was investigated as the crime of this case, and he did not repeat the crime by actively expressing the crime; and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime of this case, etc. are considered to be unfair since the court below's punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the prosecutor's allegation of unfair

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

(However, the lower court’s judgment’s second, third, fourth, and fourth, “K” is clear that it is a clerical error in the context of “AJ”, and the third, seventh, third, “AJ” is a clerical error in the context of “AJ on August 2, 2014,” and thus, ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.