The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below, forged and falsified notice of permission to engage in freight trucking services, thereby making a public official in charge register each truck for business use as stated in the attached Form List (2), it cannot be deemed that the public official made a false report on such false fact with regard to the special media records, such as electronic records, etc., and used it.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, a cargo vehicle affiliated company, and a LABBBBB in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, operated the HABBA and the LABBB. The Defendant, who limited the number of registered cargo vehicles, forged a notice of change in the terms of permission for trucking transport business, which is essential to register the trucking transport business as a truck for business use, and forged the notification of change in the terms of permission for trucking transport business (repair and scrapping) which is essential to register the trucking transport business as a truck for business use, and entered into an entrustment contract with the land owner, and had the land owner operate the vehicle.

On December 9, 2009, the Defendant filed a false report with the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office's civil petition office located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the fact that the Defendant did not meet the requirements for the replacement and scrapping of a truck for business use, and did not file a report on the modification of the requirements for the permission for the trucking transport business, and thus cannot be registered as a truck for business use. However, the Defendant accepted the Defendant's false report stating that he scrapped the I truck for business use from counterfeit G and borrowed the I truck for the maximum discretion on November 18, 2010.