The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be forfeited from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, from March 2013 to September 8, 2015, was engaged in the business of repairing meters and operating odometer. The Defendant had already been punished by imprisonment with labor for one year and six months and the instant criminal facts constitute a single criminal offense, which became final and conclusive, should be acquitted.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, since the business crime refers to a crime that is naturally anticipated to repeat the same kind of act in the nature of the constituent element as a group offender, the crime of aiding and abetting fraud in the judgment of the Defendant, which differs from the victim, and the crime of violating the Automobile Management Act, even though the crime of aiding and abetting fraud in the judgment of the lower court, which differs from the victim, is repeated, it cannot be viewed as a crime that is anticipated to repeat the same act in the nature of the constituent element (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2390, Jul. 22, 2004).

Examining the records in comparison with the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, a thorough examination of the records reveals that the crime of this case cannot be deemed to be a crime that is likely to repeat the same kind of act in the nature of the constituent requirements as stated in the judgment of the court below, and is not recognized as a single criminal intent because the subject of the crime is different, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is that the defendant reduced the odometer and the mileage of the vehicle by 70 times more than two years, and the change of the odometer is not secured by performance and safety.