A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment is the primary criminal defendant, and the criminal defendant does not repeat the crime, reflecting his depth.

The Defendant informed the Seoul National Police Agency metropolitan investigative group of the “special larceny and embezzlement crime, etc., such as theft of sold large vehicles,” thereby arresting the offender, and supporting the poor wife and children.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant without registration and with the sale and distribution of large-scale vehicles over 101 times, and the crime is heavy in light of the period of transaction, frequency of transaction, amount of transaction, and size of business.

The distribution of large-sized vehicles is very likely to make it difficult to punish offenders of traffic administrative regulations or persons in charge of traffic accidents because it is difficult to find the actual owner of the vehicle, as well as social harm is very high in that large-sized vehicles are used as tools for various crimes.

In addition, in full view of the legislative intent of the Automobile Management Act, the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant and all the sentencing conditions shown in the proceedings, the sentence of the court below shall be appropriate, and it shall not be deemed that it is too weak or unreasonable.

3. If so, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.