The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it was not notified in writing of the fact that a mortgage was established on the relevant automobile at the time of the contract of this case, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case by mistake of the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the fact-finding, there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant arranged the sale and purchase of used cars of this case on April 14:30, 2015 and notified the buyer of the fact that a mortgage was established on a motor vehicle subject to sale before the conclusion of the sale and purchase contract (in light of the data submitted by the Defendant, it is recognized that the buyer became aware of the establishment of a mortgage on the relevant motor vehicle in the process of ascertaining the reason for the registration of transfer even after the lapse of the month in which he purchased the motor vehicle, and that the buyer became aware of the establishment of a mortgage was established on the relevant motor vehicle). Even if the Defendant’s assertion is true, Article 58(1) of the Automobile Management Act provides that where a motor vehicle dealer sells a motor vehicle or arranges the sale and purchase of a motor vehicle, he shall notify the buyer “in writing” before entering into the sale and purchase contract, and even according to the Defendant’s assertion itself, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake itself is without merit.

B. Considering that the Defendant’s health condition of the Defendant’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing is not good, the Defendant still denies the fact of the instant crime, the lower court’s sentencing condition has no particular difference, and the Defendant’s age, gender, and conduct.