The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant merely flicked a motor vehicle trial in order to turn on a motor vehicle stop, and did not drive the motor vehicle at the time and place of the decision, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio shall be examined ex officio.

The crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act as stated in the judgment of the court below is a crime falling under Articles 148-2 (2) 1 and 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); since the statutory penalty is one to three years, or more than five million won and less than ten million won and less than ten million won, if the court below selected a fine and sentenced the defendant to a punishment of less than five million won, it shall reduce the amount of punishment in accordance with Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act.

However, while sentencing a fine of KRW 3 million to the Defendant, the lower court erred by omitting discretionary mitigation in the application of statutes, thereby violating the minimum statutory penalty.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts has the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, it is examined.

Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a witness’s statement in accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement was clearly erroneous, or the result of the first instance court’s examination and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court is additionally conducted until the closing of arguments.