The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who is the owner of the instant vehicle, transferred the possession of the instant vehicle to return the vehicle at the request of the Gag Capital Co., Ltd., the owner of the instant vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant did not intend to obtain illegal gains on the instant vehicle. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended execution in August, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. On August 17, 2012, the court below's decision ex officio examined the following facts: (a) the Defendant was not prosecuted; and (b) the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime without prison labor including F on August 17, 2012 on the date of the first instance trial of the court of first instance; (c) thus, this constitutes a confession made before the judgment of the reported case became final and conclusive, and thus, the Defendant is required to be mitigated or exempted from punishment pursuant to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act; and (d) the part of the judgment of the court below on the charge of false accusation in this point is no longer maintained; and (e) the court below sentenced one punishment within one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act by deeming that each of the above crimes without prison labor and larceny were in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; (d) although the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained

3. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the instant vehicle was used by the first instance court to lease the instant vehicle from the Agman Capital Co., Ltd., which had been employed by the Defendant as the representative director, and the Defendant rent to F.