Of the convictions in the judgment of the court of first instance, the convictions in the judgment of the court of second instance and 3.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant A1) 1 (A) : The Defendant did not participate in the acquisition of sirens by fraud; the Defendant introduced a motor vehicle exporter or confirmed a motor vehicle after the fact; and there was no fact that the Defendant stated that he/she would allow the victim A to drive the motor vehicle for the purpose of securing the victim A.

B) Unreasonable sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for the accused (three years and eight months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unlimited and unfair. 2) The sentence against the accused by the second instance judgment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3) The punishment of the Defendant of the judgment of the court below of the third instance (one month of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. B. The punishment of Defendant AO Defendant (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of probation, community service order, 120 hours of probation, confiscation) is too unreasonable. C. Prosecutor 1) the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants acquired sirens through multiple times under the same veterinary law; (b) the Defendants’ statements on the process of acquiring the Defendants’ vehicles are inconsistent; (c) the vehicles are also strings obtained in Japan; and (d) the vehicles are sirens obtained in accordance with attached Table 8 (not guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance); and (b) the vehicles are also twitk that were pusheded in Japan (not guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance). The above punishment against the Defendants are too unreasonable.

2) misunderstanding of facts: Defendant A did not have the intent and ability to deliver each relevant vehicle by repairing the relevant vehicle to the victim C, D, E, and F.

(B) Unreasonable sentencing: The above-mentioned sentence against Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable. (3) The above-mentioned sentence against Defendant A is too unhued and thus unfair. (3) The above-mentioned sentence against Defendant A is too unhued.

2. Article 1, 2, and 3 of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant A's ex officio judgment, each of which was rendered by the court below, and the defendant A and the prosecutor filed an appeal against this case, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings. Of the conviction part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant A is guilty.