The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and DefendantO for eight months.

1. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years, confiscation, DefendantO: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and one year, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal on the part of the defendant'sO prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

On September 23, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months by imprisonment with prison labor and a violation of the Automobile Management Act at the Seoul Central District Court on September 23, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 9, 2016.

Since each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant is in a concurrent relationship between each of the above crimes and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a sentence shall be imposed in consideration of equity in the case where a concurrent judgment is rendered pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part of the judgment of the court below which determined the punishment against the defendant cannot be maintained as it is.

B. The Defendant’s crime of violation of the Automobile Management Act of this case with respect to Defendant B’s unfair argument of sentencing was committed in violation of the following: (a) the Defendant did not transfer the ownership of the vehicle while taking over the vehicle; (b) sold the vehicle without the transfer of ownership; or (c) sold the vehicle in a systematic and planned manner; (d) the distribution of the large-scale vehicle obstructs the State’s vehicle management, such as imposition of fines for violation of laws and regulations, collection of automobile tax, etc. due to the increase in the operation of non-insurance vehicles, and the victim was born due to the increase in the operation of the large-scale vehicle, and there is a concern that the large-scale vehicle might be used for various criminal acts; (b) the frequency and scale of the crime in this case; and (c) the Defendant was punished for the same crime; and (d) in particular, the Defendant committed the same kind of crime in the course of trial

However, it is against the defendant's recognition of the crime of this case, the balance in sentencing with the accomplice W, and other defendant's seal.