All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) As to the violation of the Automobile Management Act (as to the guilty part of the judgment below), the Defendant did not acquire each motor vehicle indicated in the crime sight table as indicated in the judgment below.

Motor vehicles Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 8 are given money to a nominal person as a collateral for transfer, and the motor vehicles of Nos. 2, 4, and 5 are transferred only to the position of the transferor as a collateral right holder, and only motor vehicles of Nos. 9 are arranged for sale and purchase.

B) As to the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act, the Defendant did not operate a motor vehicle as indicated in the facts charged.

2) The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 9 million) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. According to the prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below), the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the defendant acquired a motor vehicle as stated in this part of the facts charged and transferred a motor vehicle again to a third party without making a transfer registration of ownership. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the defendant not guilty.

2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and examined evidence, the lower court’s determination as to the violation of the Automobile Management Act may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant did not file an application for the registration of ownership transfer or transferred the ownership to a third party without filing an application for the registration of ownership transfer under his/her own name, even though the Defendant acquired a motor vehicle Nos. 1 through 6, 8, and 9 in the crime list as indicated in the lower judgment,

Therefore, the decision of the court below to this purport is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

I am.