The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

A. The “motor vehicle dealer” under Articles 80 subparag. 7 and 58(1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act should be interpreted only when the motor vehicle dealer sells a motor vehicle in person. The Defendant was the owner or the seller of the above used vehicle in the sale of FHUMMERH3 used vehicle (hereinafter “the instant used vehicle”). Since the Defendant was a motor vehicle dealer, he/she was not in the position of “motor vehicle dealer” under Articles 80 subparag. 7 and 58(1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act.

B. According to the manual of the second class and the testimony of the witness I of the trial court of the instant case, while the engine error was parked for a long time, heavy oil ingredients among the engine errors may have been laid down and the pressure was lowered, or there may have been an error in the electronic parts of the electronic instruments or vehicles. Thus, the second class engine error of the instant case was insufficient.

It can not be said that the heavy height of the vehicle was suspended on an expressway due to the severe pollution and circulation failure of the engine error.

C. On January 2014, the Defendant issued a motor vehicle performance check at the time of the purchase of a vehicle to A, who notified A of the fact that “the filling, etc. of yellow Engines on and off one occasion, but later returned to normal conditions.” The Defendant, as a seller, notified A of the fact that he/she was aware of the current status of the vehicle he/she knows to A, as a motor vehicle dealer, in both the content of the motor vehicle performance check sheet and the fact that he/she became aware of the status of the vehicle. As such, the Defendant either notifies the buyer of the performance and status of the vehicle in this case, or makes a false notification to A.