After receiving KRW 15,00 from B, the Defendant promised to get 15,00 won, and operated B on his own, but did not receive money because it did not have cash after having arrived at the destination. As a result, the lower court which found guilty of the facts charged in this case was erroneous in matters of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that Article 90 subparag. 1 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger transport business”), without obtaining a license under Article 4(1) of the same Act, punishs a person engaged in an act of passenger transport business type using a motor vehicle other than that stipulated in Article 2, and “passenger transport business” here refers to a business (Article 2 subparag. 3 of the same Act) transporting passengers by using a motor vehicle in compliance with another person’s demand. In light of the legislative intent and content of the above provision, even if the transport fee was not actually paid, if the transport fee was not actually paid, it shall be subject to punishment in cases where the passenger was transported by promising the payment of the transport fee (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do5827, Nov. 27, 2014). This legal doctrine likewise applies to cases where a private car was offered for transport at a cost as seen in the instant case. Thus, even if the Defendant promised to receive the transport fee from the passengers and provided the private car for transport, it constitutes “a person who provided the private car for compensation.”

B. Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is erroneous and erroneous as otherwise pointed out by the defendant.