The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s judgment that did not confiscate the money confiscated by misapprehending the legal doctrine is unlawful, even though it is the sales proceeds of large-scale vehicles.

B. The above sentence of the court below on the grounds that the above sentence of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, which determines the prosecutor's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, is arbitrary, and the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for the confiscation depends on the court's discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). Thus, the court below's failure to issue a sentence of confiscation on an article subject to voluntary confiscation cannot be deemed unlawful because it goes beyond the court's discretion. Thus, the prosecutor's allegation above is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and prosecutor on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and prosecutor, the act of purchasing, selling, arranging for sale, etc. a motor vehicle without the registration of the motor vehicle management business, such as the instant crime, is not only prejudicial to the transaction and distribution order of motor vehicles, but also there is a need to strictly punish a large number of victims by abusing it as a means of crime or tax evasion, etc., and there is a need to strictly punish a large number of victims. For a considerable long period of time, the Defendant’s act of selling, arranging for sale and purchase, etc. over 466 times, such as the period of transaction, frequency of transaction, transaction, amount of transaction, and scale of business, and the fact that there is no good character of a crime in light of the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime and three criminal records

However, the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case, and that the defendant's mistake is against the defendant's living in custody for about seven months, and that it seems to be against the defendant's mistake.