The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant’s act of entering the facts charged in this case does not exceed the scope of business operation without registering the automobile maintenance business as stipulated in the Automobile Management Act, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, Article 132 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act only provides that the car body's painting work is one of the parts belonging to the work scope of the automobile maintenance business, and the part part of the body is separate from the seal of the entire body and does not exclude it within the scope of the work. Thus, even though it is a part of the body's body, the car body's painting work can not be operated without the registration of the automobile maintenance business unless it is done unless it is done unless it is done to remove the defects in the part of the body's body using a simple tool such as strings or shesheshesheshesheshes, etc., even though it is a part of the body's body's body part.

(2) In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below's finding of facts and determination are justified and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as asserted in the judgment below. Thus, the court below's finding of facts and determination is justified. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is justified. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.