The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not affect the performance and safety of a motor vehicle, but merely remove parts of a motor vehicle and thus does not require the registration of the motor vehicle maintenance business, the judgment of the court below convicts the defendant of the facts charged in the instant case that the motor vehicle maintenance business was conducted without the registration of the motor vehicle management business, by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 132 subparag. 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act provides that a car body’s painting work is one of the parts belonging to the scope of the automobile maintenance business, and the part of the body is different from the body body’s painting and does not specifically exclude it from the scope of the work. Thus, even though it is a partial design for a part of the body, the car body’s painting work cannot be conducted without the registration of the automobile maintenance business unless it is merely a degree of removing the body’s defects by means of separation or painting of the body on the parts of the body generated in the body using a simple tool, such as a press or shesheshesheshesheshesheshes, unless it is done within the scope of the automobile maintenance business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2404, Jun. 10, 2004; 2004Do2404, Feb. 10, 200).