All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, and community service order 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Establishment and Utilization of Sports Facilities, Defendant B, with the knowledge that safety measures have already been taken for the instant “F” through an inspection by the Korea Automobile Association, had it used for a motor vehicle-related event. As such, at the time of the instant case, there was no criminal intent as to the above Defendant’s operation of the motor vehicle racing business without the registration of the competent authority. Nevertheless, there was an error in the misapprehension of the facts charged against the above Defendant. 2) The judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant B of this part of the facts charged against the foregoing Defendant, which was sentenced by the court below on unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of suspension of execution, and eight hours of community service order

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding Defendant B’s assertion of mistake, the lower court recognized that Defendant B operated the automobile racing track business in F, such as allowing the Plaintiff’s organization, “G,” etc., which is the vehicle racing team, to use the car competition in F while holding an event, such as I from F without registering the automobile racing business, while knowing that the vehicle racing team, while holding the vehicle competition in F, would use the vehicle competition vehicle by receiving the fee from G, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized that Defendant B had the criminal intent to run the automobile racing track business without the registration of the competent authority at the time of the instant case is just and acceptable, and Defendant B’s assertion that points out the error of mistake in the judgment of the court below as to this part of the judgment

1 Defendant B as a director of the Co., Ltd., and from February 18, 2012 to June 6, 2014.