Accordingly, the defendant used the marks of public offices for the purpose of exercising them.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

First of all, according to the notice of administrative fines for violation of spirits attached to the complaint, it is recognized that the number plate of C holder D treatment 11.5 tons of C holder D treatment at the same date and place as the facts charged was attached to Defendant company's Hyundai 1.5 tons of 11.5 tons of Kac Truck (commercial purpose).

However, it is not enough to recognize that the defendant directly removed the number plate and affixed it, or that he instructed another person to do so.

Next, there is a statement in E's investigative agency and in this court, and E is believed in the investigative agency that "it is not aware of a specific act, but it is believed that A was instructed to attach a number plate on the vehicle belonging to A operated by the said vehicle.

“The vehicle’s number plate is directly attached to the representative director or is operated or attached to the vehicle in this court. The driver is a general employee, and the Defendant’s number plate was attached to another vehicle.

It is necessary to think that the witness is a witness.

It is not required to do so.

“To the inquiry of the defense counsel, I think so.”

E. the purport that the defendant was removed from the number plate and affixed to another vehicle.