Of them, the part against Defendant A, E, and F, and Defendant G are acquitted.

1. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (1) Defendant A, in collusion with R and six times in general, filed a false report in the shape of a special purpose truck permitted for supply, and filed a false report in collusion with L and X as if the truck was ordinarily scrapped among the specific purpose trucks permitted for supply; and (2) Defendant A, in collusion with L and X, filed a false report in general form, and completed a false registration in collusion with L, X, and AY as if the truck was normally scrapped among the general type trucks, thereby making the most registration as if it would be ordinarily scrapped between W, X, and AY, and thereby, Defendant A engaged in trucking transport business without the permission of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport; and (2) Defendant E, F, and G, the representative of each corporation, a corporation, committed the above act in relation to the business of each corporation.

B. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, operated a trucking transport business by increasing the number of trucks, the supply of which is limited through false scraping, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

However, this does not constitute an increase in the number of vehicles subject to permission for change pursuant to Article 3(3) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “trucking Act”).

In view of these facts charged, the lower court acquitted all of the charges.

(c)

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

1) Article 3 of the Act provides that a person who intends to run a trucking transport business shall obtain permission from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries in accordance with Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.