The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In spite of the fact that the defendant alleged the mistake of fact did not damage the official documents, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby finding the defendant guilty.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered against the defendant (one million won a penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the claim for adjudication, copy of the driver's license (E), and receipt (tax rate) are public documents prepared and attached to the request for adjudication in Busan Southern Police Station C at the Busan Southern Police Station C, which are the documents for adjudication, ② the defendant's losses that the defendant intends to bring on the above documents on the police officer's book is confirmed as dynamic image. ③ In other words, it is confirmed that the right upper end of the request for adjudication is teared, and the copy and receipt (tax rate) of the driver's license are confirmed as photographs. In full view of the following circumstances, the defendant can be recognized that the above three public documents were damaged in the course of collecting the receipt (tax rate) by the police officer's complaint for the handling of the case. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion of mistake against this is rejected.

B. Although the crime of this case was in a way to dispute the suspected violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (leviation) in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Act, it is not easy for the Defendant to avoid disturbance within the patrol team and damage the public documents of this case.

However, the defendant's assertion that the taxi driver claimed 12,120 won for the first time against the defendant, but later revised the taxi fee to 8,800 won, seems to be a single fact, and the defendant's assertion that the taxi driver and the scambling had occurred.