Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found guilty of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the defendant's investigation agency and the court below's legal statement, D and E statements, reports on detection of vehicles violating restrictions on operation, and records on the control of the government agency's non-compliance, etc., the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he/she failed to comply with the request for presentation of relevant documents for the reason that he/she does not cause the restriction on operation to his/her own at the time of the instant case. [The records show that according to the records, the defendant requested the control officer of the restriction on operation at the time of the instant case to allow him/her to re-examine the second examination (4 to 5 reduction), but the control officer of the restriction on operation explained that the change in water such as the defendant's request is not sufficient in accordance with the relevant provisions, and the defendant fails to comply with the demand of the control officer for presentation of related documents on the ground that the restriction on operation does not harm his/her own demand, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is any justifiable reason for the defendant's mistake.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.