2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court may fully find the facts charged of the instant case guilty.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

The illegal attachment of the instant vehicle seems to have been well aware that the Defendant, who had been engaged in the operation of a stacker, could easily be easily identified from the outside (Evidence No. 300, 307 pages) by means of PED work, etc. (one-time, one-time, one-way, one-way, one-way, one-way), attached to the instant vehicle, was affixed with illegal attachment on the instant vehicle, and it would not pass through the comprehensive inspection of the instant vehicle unless the aforementioned illegal attachment was removed.

[B] At the court below’s testimony to the effect that the entire PE Head of the instant vehicle was an illegal attachment. However, when comparing the photograph (Evidence No. 300 pages) of the instant vehicle with the external appearance of the instant vehicle (Evidence No. 307 pages), the illegal attachment of the instant vehicle appears to be a PE work, etc., attached to the upper end of the instant vehicle. At the time of the inspection of the instant vehicle, it is impossible to confirm whether the instant vehicle was accompanied by the verification tape on the aforementioned PE work, etc., but even without attaching the verification tape, B seems to have never passed the comprehensive car inspection without attaching the verification tape (Evidence No. 395, 396, 403-412 pages).

Even before the instant case, the Defendant testified to the effect that B was aware of a comprehensive motor vehicle inspection conducted by the instant inspection office, and that B could have passed the comprehensive motor vehicle inspection conducted at will without any unlawful commission in the original trial (the 90 pages of the trial record). However, the instant motor vehicle is the instant vehicle.