A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles merely merely driven the instant vehicle, which is a construction machine, and thus does not constitute “a person who operates construction machinery without obtaining a construction machine operator’s license,” as prescribed by Article 41 subparag. 2 and the main text of Article 26(1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act, but the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the charges. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Operation of construction machinery” under Article 26(1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles refers to using construction machinery according to its original purpose and use.

According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the defendant, on January 31, 2016, had 35 (1 7 x 5 x 5 x 1) of a container capital reduction in order to move the capital stored in K's warehouse located in Bosung-gun AD to the defendant's house located at approximately 300m or 400m far away from the defendant's house, and that the defendant operated the above knife to the outer village room in the enclosed village by driving the knife and going through the outer village room from the knife village. Accordingly, the operation of the knife is limited to the operation of the construction machinery by using the construction machinery in accordance with its original method of use.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. We examine the judgment of both parties on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the occurrence of the serious result of the victim’s death due to the instant traffic accident, and the fact that the crime of attempted fraud of this case is not good.