2. B

3. C:

4. Daehan:

Attorney F, G

Attorneys H and I (for all the defendants):

The summary of this decision shall be published.

Defendant A is the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”), Defendant B is the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) established for the purpose of software development, database search, development and sale, content production and development, etc., and the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”).

Defendant B holds approximately 35% of the shares in C, and C took over 100% of D’s shares around May 2018, and D began to engage in the Mothy service provided to passengers by combining the lease of 11 passengers and the arrangement of drivers with respect to the 11-person K-type car and the Mothy service provided by J around October 2018.

Any person who intends to operate passenger transport business shall prepare a business plan and obtain a license from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and no rent-a-car business operator shall use his/her commercial automobiles

Nevertheless, the Defendants managed and supervised the driver's commuting to and from work time and rest time, the driver's vehicle to be operated, and the passenger's bridge to get the driver to work as a vehicle for the 11st passengerK owned by C during the designated working hours, so that the driver can get the driver to work as a vehicle for the 11st passengerK, and the driver will assign a specific vehicle to the driver, move the driver to the "a waiting area where the demand of passengers is anticipated, such as the street station, etc., and then let the driver move the vehicle to the "a waiting area" in which the demand of the passengers will be anticipated, and then, if the driver executes the J's app, sent the passenger's location information to the driver near the relevant passenger and connect the driver to the passenger, and if the driver transports the passenger to the destination, he/she planned to do business by means of credit cards stored in the J's app in advance.

Accordingly, on December 20, 2018, when the Defendants requested a vehicle through J's "J" H, the Defendants used the 11-person K passenger car M, which is a business car owned by C, to transport the said passengers from the above place to the Dongjak-gu Seoul N, and, thereafter, required to pay KRW 8,200 by credit card stored in the J's app from October 8, 2018 to July 22, 2019, the Defendants used approximately KRW 11,50,000, the 111-person K passenger car owned by C, from October 8, 2018 to July 2, 2019, transported the total sales amounting to KRW 26.8 billion.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to operate passenger transport business without obtaining a license from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and at the same time transported passengers by using car rental business operators.

2. Relevant statutes and legal principles

(a) Statutes;

Passenger Transport Service Act

Article 2 (Definitions)

1. The term "motor vehicles" means motor vehicles and buses referred to in Article 3 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act;

3. The term "passenger transport business" means a business that transports passengers for consideration using automobiles to meet the demand from any third person;

4. The term "rent-a-car business" means a business that rents automobiles for profit to meet the demand from others;

Article 4 (License, etc.)

(1) Any person who intends to operate passenger transport business shall prepare a business plan and obtain a license from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Provided, That any person who intends to operate passenger transport business prescribed by Presidential Decree shall prepare a business plan and obtain a license from the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan Autonomous City Mayor, Do Governor, or Special Self-Governing Province Governor (hereinafter referred

Article 34 (Prohibition, etc. of Onerous Transport)

(1) No person who rents a commercial motor vehicle of a rent-a-car business entity shall use such motor vehicle for transport with compensation or sublet it to any third person, and no person shall arrange for such use.

(2) No one shall arrange a driver for any person who rents any commercial motor vehicle of a rent-a-car business operator: Provided, That he/she may arrange such driver in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as foreigners,

(3) No rent-a-car business operator shall use his/her commercial motor vehicle for passenger transport with compensation in response to the demand from any third person, and no person shall arrange such transport.

Article 90 (Penal Provisions)

Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won:

1. Any person who operates passenger transport business without obtaining a license or making a registration under Article 4 (1) or who conducts activities similar to passenger transport business by using automobiles (referring to trucks, special automobiles, or two-wheeled automobiles under Article 3 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act) other than those listed in Article 2;

6-3. A person who arranges a driver, in violation of Article 34 (2);

7. Any person who uses his/her commercial motor vehicle for passenger transport with compensation or arranges such transport, in violation of Article 34 (3);

Article 93 (Joint Penal Provisions)

If the representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other servant of the corporation or an individual commits an offence under Articles 90 through 92 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions: Provided, That this shall not apply where such corporation or individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such

Enforcement Decree of Passenger Transport Service Act

Article 18 (Limits of Permission for Mediation for Drivers)

"Cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as foreigners, disabled persons, etc." in the proviso to Article 34 (2) of the Act means the following cases:

1. Where a car rental business entity arranges a driver to any of the following lessees of a motor vehicle:

(a) A foreigner;

(b) Persons with disabilities registered under Article 32 of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act;

(c) A person aged 65 or older;

(d) The State or local governments;

E. A corporation that rents a motor vehicle for a long period of not less than six months;

(f) A person leasing a bus with 11 passengers to 15 passengers on board;

(g) A person who rents a passenger car with engine displacement of 3,00 cc or more for the purpose of direct passengers, using it for his/her marriage ceremony and its incidental events;

B. Legal principles

1) The principle of no punishment

The principle of no punishment without the law requires that a crime and punishment shall be prescribed by law in order to protect individual freedom and rights from the arbitrary exercise of the State’s penal authority. In light of such purport, the interpretation of a penal provision shall be strict, and an excessively expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation of the meaning of an express penal provision in the direction unfavorable to the defendant is not permitted as it is in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4230, Nov. 28, 2013). The principle of statutory interpretation is likewise applicable to the interpretation of the administrative law in a case where the provisions of the administrative law subject to the said penal provision are contents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do3126, Feb. 23, 19

However, in the interpretation of penal provisions, the systematic and logical interpretation method that clearly expresses the logical meaning of the language and text in accordance with the systematic relationship that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose of the pertinent provision within the possible scope of the language and text is for the interpretation of the essential contents of the provision, and is in accordance with the principle of no punishment without the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2162, Jun. 14, 2007). Unless it goes beyond the ordinary meaning of the text of the law, it does not exclude the teleological interpretation that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose of the law, legislative history, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6525, May 12, 2006). However, if an interpretation is favorable to the defendant in the interpretation of penal provisions, such interpretation should be limited to cases where the result is considerably contrary to equity and justice or seriously unreasonable, and unless so, if the legislators does not do so, it should respect the legislative intent with the legislative discretion and discretion of 1014.

2) Method of interpreting a juristic act

The interpretation of a juristic act is to clearly confirm the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of representation, and it is not difficult to understand only the language used. However, it is necessary to reasonably interpret the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of representation according to the contents of the language regardless of what the parties have expressed. In the event that the objective meaning is not clearly expressed by the party’s language, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, common sense of society and common sense of transaction, and common sense of transaction, by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the form and content of the language; (b) the motive and background leading up to the juristic act; (c) the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to the juristic act; and (d) transaction practices, etc., in light of social justice and equity; and (d) the interpretation of a non-permanent mixed contract. Such legal principle also applies to the interpretation of a non-permanent mixed contract; (d) since a number of elements of a typical contract are compatible and the legal effect corresponding thereto can be granted, it is necessary to determine the objective meaning of the parties’ act of representation (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da.

3. Basic facts

According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized:

A. When a dispute arises due to the deterioration of the rental car business including previously permitted articles into a similar taxi business, Article 34(2) was newly established in the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”) in 2000, prohibiting the referral of drivers of rent-a-car business operators. However, the proviso to Article 34(2) of the same Act and Article 18(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act were recognized.

B. In 2007, Article 34(3) of the Passenger Transport Act and penal provisions were newly established to explicitly impose a duty to prohibit commercial transport on car rental operators with the reason of proposing to eradicate illegal commercial passenger transportation by car rental operators, including taxi business.

C. Defendant C is a company established by Defendant B for the purpose of rent-a-car business, etc., and is running a business to provide a platform in which the vehicle use method is innovative from August 201. Defendant D is a mobile platform developer that Defendant A connects people based on the data established in 2011.

D. The revision of Article 18 subparag. 1 (f) and (g) of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Act to promote the convenience of car lessees in 2014, thereby expanding the permissible scope of referral for drivers of car rental business operators.

E. On October 2018, Defendant C accepted Defendant D and delegated part of the rent-a-car business on his behalf or entrusted the reservation brokerage of bus rental services including news articles.

F. Accordingly, from October 8, 2018, the Defendants, through a mobile operation system, provided the members who installed the app (hereinafter referred to as “J app”) developed by Defendant D in a smartphone and registered and joined the payment credit card (hereinafter referred to as “J user”), with the article supplied from the service companies, such as P, Q, and R Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “JDB”) at the same time as Defendant C calls for the 11-person passenger car of the 11-person passenger car (hereinafter referred to as “JW car”) in Seoul and some areas.

4. Determination

A. Whether J service constitutes a commercial passenger transport prohibited under the Passenger Transport Act

1) Legal relations between Defendant C and J users = Early short-term lease (e.g., rental)

A) In full view of the evidence and records duly examined and adopted by this court, the following circumstances are revealed.

① The J-user agreed to the terms and conditions for the use of a bus, including news agency services, and entered and confirmed pre-contracts through J apps, thereby entering into a license agreement with Defendant C, including articles, and Defendant D entered into a driving service agreement between JDber and J users, on behalf of Defendant C (Article 2(1) and Article 4(1) of the Terms and Conditions for the Use of Services for the Car Rental, including brokerage of engineers, and Article 9 of the J Service Use Terms and Conditions).

② Defendant C shall connect JDber to the J-user who was provided by the service company that entered into a contract for the provision of services as a lessee and driving service, and shall settle the JRR rental fee, driving service fee, brokerage commission, etc. in accordance with the fare system combining the distance and time moving.

③ When Defendant C’s J-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-

④ Defendant C subscribed to liability insurance under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, comprehensive automobile insurance (personal compensation, property compensation, self-physical accident) and accident insurance for automobile accident in relation to a siren JJ, thereby allowing J users to be the “insured with consent that can be deemed to have control over the automobile rental standard terms and conditions and the insured motor vehicle under social norms,” and, in the event of an insured accident, protected the automobile injury special terms and conditions in preparation for the exemption from personal injury in response to Class II.

B) Examining the above facts and circumstances in light of the relevant legal principles, it is reasonable to view that a series of contractual relationship between Defendant D and Defendant C is a mobile app-based siren services that is embodied by Defendant D’s mother loan platform (Moburt) at the time when J users need to take place, and that a contract for a short-term rental lease (Moburt) is concluded electronically between J users and Defendant C.

C) We examine whether the transaction structure between Defendant C and J users, which is either not controlled as a lessee or lack of awareness as lessee, is merely merely the best act of taking the form of the J-based lease, in light of the actual use relationship between the J-based and the Defendants, including the designation of the destination of the J-based user and the direction and supervision relationship with the J-based DDr.

J-based circumstances, such as the fact that J-based mobile app service is not well-known by the user, or only by the receipt after the termination of J-based services, etc., are not affected by the lessee’s status under the contract concluded electronically on the mobile platform, and the place specified as location information by J-based app calls is to be returned at the time of call due to the nature of the early short-term app calls, and it is necessary to enter the port of destination at the time of call, but rather, to provide the user with the time of call-based mobile app services at the time of call-to-door distance. In light of the above, it is difficult to view the user as an essential sign of the rent-to-door service contract, to the extent that the user’s duty to maintain and manage the J-based mobile app’s car-to-date services is to be reduced due to the maintenance and exemption of the user’s license and the maintenance of the J-based mobile phone-to-date service, and to the extent of the user’s duty to maintain and manage the vehicle.

(ii)an act of the J-user to move by using J-W-based vehicles and transportation of passengers;

A) Interpretation of passenger transport under the Passenger Transport Act

여객 운송 (旅客 運送) 의 사전적 의미, 즉 문언의 가능한 의미는 ' 여행하는 사람을태워 보냄 ' 인데, 여객자동차법에서 별도의 정의 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 따라서 문언의 가능한 의미 범위 내에서 여객자동차법 제90조 제1호, 제7호 (이하 ' 이 사건 처벌조항 '이라 한다) 의 의미와 적용범위를 확정하여야 한다.

In light of the above provision and the language and text of Article 2 subparagraphs 3 and 4 of the Passenger Transport Act, it is reasonable to regard the punishment provision of this case as applicable to unauthorized passenger transport by car rental business operators beyond the registered category of business, and the act of car rental business operators clearly distinguishable from the relevant legal relationship does not constitute an element of violation of prohibition of commercial transport.

Defendant C, a car rental business entity of the instant case, offered J-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-S

Therefore, interpreting that “a car rental business operator’s commercial passenger transport service without a license” includes not only a multi-party passenger taxi business that complies with another person’s demand, but also a multi-party car lease to the extent permitted as a driver’s arrangement like J services is considered not to be permitted as a violation of the principle of no punishment without law by excessively expanding or analogically interpreting penal provisions beyond the possible meaning of the language and text. It is because interpreting and defining the meaning, scope, etc. of the penal provisions of this case based on the use relation in the offline of the mobile means is not permitted in light of the aforementioned legal principles as to the principle of no punishment without law, which are the constitutional principles

B) Furthermore, we examine whether the Defendants, through the appearance of the use of sirens, transported the JJ users to meet the needs of the J users, thereby providing for commercial passenger transport without permission.

As seen earlier in detail, ① the main purpose at the time of the enactment of the Passenger Transport Act was mainly regulating the act of causing a high risk of similar taxi business under the Passenger Transport Act, and the subject of the car rental business operator’s arrangement is extended to 11 passengers and more than 15 passengers and less than 15 passengers, ② The legislative history of the Passenger Transport Act was amended in the direction of formulating a separate penal provision for the lease of a commercial car by a car rental business operator beyond the permissible scope of the driver arrangement; ③ the real-time call of the JT car and the arrangement of JD-based mother loan services at the same time, it cannot be deemed that the denial of the transaction structure of the J-based service through the platform and the economic effect such as the transportation of passengers for consideration has occurred due to the J-based services.

B. Defendant B and A’s intentional intent

Even if the J service falls under the elements of the punishment provision of this case, the facts and circumstances as seen earlier and the additions thereof ① set the number of users at a level below the taxi according to the measurement of a relatively short time of movement distance and the distance of movement, ② do not seem to have marketing the number of users of J TN with the main flag or induced boarding. ③ Defendants seem to have undergone a legal review on legality, etc. from LL law before J service begins. From September 1 to September 20, 2019 to September 20, 2019, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the head of the bureau, division, division, official in charge, and official in charge from time to time, and consultation with the public officials in charge of J service such as meeting, telephone, e-mail, and S text message to have no negative discussion or administrative guidance about the illegality of J service in the course of consultation with respect to the dispatch, operation, status, etc. of J service, and ④ It seems to have clearly been a “common service brokerage structure for a vehicle with a similar structure of J service.”

It is also possible to arrange for drivers (U.S.) and to conclude a legitimate contract if the contract includes the contents that the driver was arranged for the rental service contract from a third party after J services. (C. 2017. 1. 27. 2018. 5. 6. 6. 6. 6% of the number of private passenger transport services provided by the Seoul Self-Governing Province's 19. 6. 6% of the number of public transport services provided by the Seoul Self-Governing Province (C. 2019. 1. 29. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 201).

5. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a summary of the judgment of innocence is announced pursuant to Article 58

Judges Park Sang-gu