The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (the factual error) is that the wing-type container of this case constitutes a “goods loading device” under Article 8(2)10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Management Act, not a simple loaded article, and constitutes an automobile device. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the facts charged, which acquitted the Defendant on the charge of this case.

2. The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the instant wing vehicle is a vehicle manufactured and sold separately from the above wing vehicle, and thus, it is constructed to load only the transport container without any separate loading, ② the “wing wing-oriented transport container” which was loaded on the instant wing vehicle can be loaded and unloaded by using the wing vehicle, such as ordinary containers. However, unlike ordinary containers, it is called “wing wing-oriented container” in the form of “wing wing wing-related container” so that it can be easily repaired when loading and unloading freight. ③ The above “wing wing-related container” is manufactured and sold separately from the above wing vehicle and loaded as necessary. Thus, it is hard to view that the above wing-related vehicle can easily be loaded at any time because it was not fixed to the show wing vehicle, ④ it can not be seen that the above wing-related vehicle was installed with the structure of the instant vehicle or the changed wing type of container, and thus, it cannot be seen as unlawful even after the above wing type of container.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is justified.