A. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (the first crime as indicated in the lower judgment: exemption of punishment; the second crime as indicated in the lower judgment: fine of two million won; confiscation) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. The period of the Defendant’s criminal act is not shorter.

Although the defendant is under repeated crime due to fraud, he committed a violation of the Automobile Management Act.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized his mistake and reflected his mistake.

The crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below is a concurrent crime between the previous conviction (four months of imprisonment) in the judgment of the court below and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and there is a need to consider equity in the case of the judgment

Defendant

As a result of the public sale of vehicles, all taxes in arrears were settled, and the number plate of the Defendant was returned.

The health of defendants is not good.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the circumstances of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or is deemed unreasonable as it is too heavy. Therefore, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, since all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, they are all dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.