All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of fines of 10,00,000 won, fines of 5,000,000 won, fines of 5,00,000 won, Defendant C, and D: Each fine of 2,50,000,000 won, and Defendant L: fine of 1,50,000 won) imposed by the lower court against the Defendants are too uneasible.

2. The number of the defendants' offenses of the Automobile Management Act is many, and the defendants appear to have obtained large amount of unjust profits, and the defendants submitted to the Korea Transportation Safety Authority a certificate of completion of structural device alteration as they had changed the structure of a legitimate automobile management businessman, and the defendants submitted it to the Korea Transportation Safety Authority. The above acts of the defendants are acts that may threaten the safety of many motor vehicle drivers and persons driving on roads, which are disadvantageous to the defendants.

However, there was an automobile problem due to the Defendants’ act of committing the instant crime, which led to the confession of the Defendants and the failure to repeat the instant crime, and the Defendants’ act of committing the instant crime.

No evidence can be found to prove that a safety accident was actually occurred, and the fact that each fine amount against the Defendants appears to have been set in consideration of the number of Defendants’ frequency of violation and amount of money and valuables received is favorable to the Defendants.

In full view of the above circumstances and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, including the circumstances and motive, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age of the Defendants, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., as well as the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, there is no change in circumstances to determine a different sentence between the original judgment and the original judgment. Thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is rejected.

3. In conclusion, there is no reason to appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor. Thus, all appeals are made in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.