여객자동차운수사업법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the court below found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, in spite of the fact that the defendant merely arranged a car rental contract as a travel agency and did not have concluded a car rental contract on behalf of the
2. Determination
A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the defendant's criminal facts and applicable provisions of Acts as follows, in the trial of the court, and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
On April 1, 2011, the Defendant concluded a contract to lend the said vehicle to E and F for 48 hours as an agent of E and E with respect to the vehicle rental business of E and F Haule, a contract to lend the said vehicle to E and F Haule for 118,000 won, not for the rental terms reported by E and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the above contract, while E and E were not in compliance with the contract to lend the said vehicle to E and perform the rental terms and conditions of the said vehicle.
② Around April 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract to lend the vehicle rental business of the Hastoty Co., Ltd. with G and H H for 24 hours with respect to the said Hastoty’s automobile rental business in the capacity of the agent of the Hastoty, and entered into a contract with 45,100 won, not for the rental agreement reported by the Hastoty for 24 hours. The Hastoty Co., Ltd. did not implement the rental agreement by lending the said car to G in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.
(1) The defendant in preliminary cases shall be the defendant on January 201.