The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

Seized evidence 1 to 14, 30 to 30.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principle 1) Of the facts charged in this case, the part corresponding to the crime list 2. The facts charged was specified on the ground that the Defendant did not at any time sell a motor vehicle from anyone at any time, for whom the Defendant purchased the motor vehicle from anyone.

Therefore, the public prosecution on this part must be dismissed.

2) On March 8, 2013, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million as a result of a crime of violating the Automobile Management Act due to a non-registered resale of a motor vehicle. Since the unregistered resale of a motor vehicle is in the relationship of a single comprehensive crime as a business offender, among the crimes indicated in paragraph (1) of the crime of the lower judgment, the Defendant shall be acquitted on the crime before March 8, 2013, which is the issuance date of the said summary order.

3) Although Articles 1, 7, 9, and 10 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below should be treated as a single comprehensive crime as the same business offender, the court below erred by determining the relationship between the facts constituting the crime in the above paragraphs as a substantive concurrent crime.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

According to the records of this case, on January 12, 2016, the prosecutor "D" among the facts charged as to the defendant's case No. 3021 on the nine trial date of the court below on January 12, 2016.

As to the facts charged in relation to the portion of the “registered motor vehicle trade business” portion, “Defendant” changed “from around March 7, 2013 to “from January 20, 2011,” and applied for the amendment of an indictment with the content of adding the charges to the charges,” and the lower court acknowledged the fact that it permitted the amendment of the indictment.

In doing so, the lower court held that “D” of the facts charged in the instant case No. 3021 of the High Order 2015 is the same.

Part of “registered automobile sales business” (Article 4. of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below).