The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged, inasmuch as the vehicle owned by the Defendant under the facts charged of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) had already been approved of the alteration of the structure device around 2005, even though the alteration of the structure of the instant vehicle was not illegal as it was based on the above approval of the alteration, there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 3.50,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a driver of BScar car.

On March 2012, 2012, the Defendant changed the structure and devices of the vehicle by attaching noise-preventive devices to the said passenger vehicle without obtaining approval from the competent authorities to change the structure and devices of the vehicle in Da located in Seogu Daegu, Seo-gu, Daegu.

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground of the evidence indicated in its holding.

(3) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below's judgment and the court of the trial, namely, ① the Defendant appears to have acknowledged the facts charged at the police investigation stage. However, at the same investigation stage, the Defendant stated as follows: (a) “At the time of purchasing the instant vehicle at the police investigation stage, Mara was one, and Mara was already changed. However, during the process of undergoing the instant vehicle inspection, Mara was originally installed and Mara was allowed to conduct an inspection; and (b) at the vehicle maintenance shop in which the Defendant knows, Mara was installed and Mara was arbitrarily installed and altered.” (c) The Defendant stated to the same effect to the same effect, and (d) the Defendant stated as follows: (a) at the time of undergoing the instant vehicle inspection, Mara was voluntarily installed in the vehicle repair shop in which Mara was sought; and (e) according to the registration certificate of the A