The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts E did not receive three-hour driving education at C Driving Schools on June 21, 2013 (hereinafter “instant driving schools”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the premise that E had received the above education was erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. Even if a person is guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (three million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, found the following facts as to the assertion of mistake of facts: ① Operational Institute of this case manages the hours of driving education of students by means of computer system; ② Operational Institute of this case is input from 08:53 on June 21, 2013 to 11:50 on the computer system of the said Private Teaching Institute; ② Operational Institute of this case is difficult due to the entry of students by the method of recognizing their fingerprints on the machinery; ② Operational Institute of this case’s post-entry in the computer system of the said Private Teaching Institute of this case, if each time is entered after the fact, there is no such code indicated; ③ Operational Institute of this case’s telephone number from 0:30 on June 21, 2013 to 11:50 on which the Defendant first stated that he/she had not received driving education at the first investigative institution; ④ Operational Center of this case’s phone number from 130 billion won on the date he/she received the above computer system.