The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant is as follows: (a) the Defendant only mediated the borrower and the user of the imported vehicle and did not operate the motor vehicle rental business; (b) the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged; and (c) even if not, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of suspending indictment, in light of the following: (a) the profits actually acquired by the Defendant as a result of the instant crime are small amount and the borrower F, who received much more profits than the Defendant, was subject to a disposition of suspending indictment, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant to KRW 3,00,000 is too unreasonable

2. Determination

A. As to the mistake of the fact, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, based on the evidence presented by the lower court, determined that: (a) the Defendant recruited the clients to provide a siren car through a car page operated by the Defendant to lease the relevant vehicle to a third party for a fee, and secured the leased vehicle by dividing a part of the rent into the clients; (b) the user of the vehicle without knowledge of the actual vehicle owner, the amount paid to the vehicle provider; (c) the Defendant paid the amount to the Defendant as the fee for the use of the vehicle; (d) the consignor was also the user; (e) the vehicle user was the user; (e) the vehicle user was the user; (e) the vehicle user was the person using the vehicle; and (e) the Defendant received the vehicle directly from the trustor; and (iii) collected and delivered the vehicle to the truster; and (e) the vehicle manager was required to grasp the situation through the Defendant at the time of damage or theft of the vehicle; and (e) the Defendant managed the vehicle during the period of lease.