The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant considered the vehicles stated in the facts constituting the crime of the court below as the vehicles without permission and reported them as the vehicles without permission at the time of loyalty. After that, the defendant decided that the pertinent vehicles are the vehicles without permission and ordered the defendant to scrap the vehicles, and only the defendant scrapped the vehicles in accordance with such instruction.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute "other improper acts" under Article 57 (1) 3 of the Automobile Management Act.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① there are a number of registrations for the instant vehicles B and C, ② the Defendant received an inquiry from D and E that it is difficult to scrap their vehicles due to normal circumstances, ② the Defendant received information from D and E to inform D and E that it is possible to scrap them, and then received delivery of each vehicle without permission, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts acknowledged and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) where mortgage is established or seized under Article 142 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act, vehicle dismantling business operator shall not scrap the vehicle; and (ii) the said vehicles transferred by the Defendant upon request of scrap disposal are not vehicles without permission; and (iii) even if it is a large-scale vehicle, it is not a vehicle without permission, and thus, it is difficult for the Defendant to report the vehicle without permission under Article 142 (1) 5 of the Automobile Management Act to use the vehicle without permission.