화물자동차운수사업법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows: (a) in the provision of packing directors services, the defendant provided private-use truck free of charge; and (b) in the provision of packing directors services only received the cost of packing directors services such as personnel expenses according to the standard unit price table; (c) so it is unreasonable to apply the Trucking Transport Business Act to the defendant's business activities operating packing directors, the court below convicted the defendant
2. Determination
A. The court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (1) packing business comprehensively provides transport services, including the packing, storage, placement, and cleaning of e-mail; (2) the transport of e-mail is nothing more than an incidental part of the service; and (3) in this case, E, a customer who requested a packing director to the Defendant, did not enter into a separate transport contract with a separate trucking service provider; and (4) the service user fee was not paid separately; and therefore, the service user fee paid by the Defendant shall be deemed not to include the user fee or operating expenses of e-mail used in the transport of e-mail in addition to the personnel expenses paid to the Defendant (the employee who received daily allowances from the Defendant and the H driving of a truck by the customer E who requested the packing director to request the Defendant according to the Defendant’s instruction from the Defendant to the same G in Songpa-gu Seoul at the expense of the Defendant. In full view of the investigation record No. 54-5 of the investigation record, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit.
(b) also engage in the following circumstances, i.e., packing directors service business: