The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles) is that the Defendant also held the head of a vehicle to the extent that the registration of the automobile maintenance business is not required.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the instant facts charged.

2. Before making a judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the amendment of Articles 79 subparag. 13 and 53 subparag. 1 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 13686, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter “former Automobile Management Act”) was made by Act No. 13686, Dec. 29, 2015; the statutory penalty was raised by “a imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding ten million won” from “a fine not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding thirty million won”; the Addenda of the Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 13686, Dec. 29, 2015) provides that the said amendment shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation.

Therefore, although the facts charged in this case should be subject to the former Automobile Management Act, a corporation at the time of action, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act, the court below erred by applying the new law to the defendant, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and in this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court in relation to the facts charged in this case, and this is examined in the below.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “as to whether the Defendant’s act belongs to the extent that it does not require the registration of automobile maintenance business”.

B. (1) Article 2 Subparag. 8 of the Automobile Management Act of the relevant legal doctrine provides that “automobile maintenance business” means automobile inspection, and that: