The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that the Defendant of misapprehension of the legal principle did not attach a back dump truck B’s subsequent safety b, the subsequent dump landing does not constitute “major alteration of the structure of construction machinery” under Article 17(1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found that the failure to attach dump trucks to the safety bump truck constitutes a major change in the structure of construction machinery and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who actually keeps, manages, and operates dump truck B, a construction machine.

Where any person intends to alter or remodel the major structure of registered construction machinery, he/she shall comply with construction machinery safety standards.

Nevertheless, on December 23, 2018, the Defendant operated the above dump truck, construction machinery, which is a construction machinery, at the dump truck plant in Kimhae-si, without attaching the safety dump truck, which is a construction machinery, at the dump truck at the dump plant in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si.

As a result, the Defendant changed the front part of the construction machinery to the extent that it does not meet the construction machinery safety standards.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of the evidence indicated in its judgment.

(1) Where any person intends to alter or remodel the major structure, motor, power transmission device, brakes, etc. of registered construction machinery, he/she shall meet the construction machinery safety standards.