Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding facts or understanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that Article 67 subparagraph 5 of the Trucking Transport Business Act and Article 56 of the Trucking Transport Business Act are not applicable to the operation of packing director service business for packing directors, there is no separate provision that Article 67 subparagraph 5 of the same Act does not apply to the operation of packing service business for packing, and that if a trucking transport business license is obtained by meeting the requirements set forth in the Trucking Transport Business Act and the Enforcement Rules of the same Act, it is legally possible to operate packing director service business by providing transport for compensation, and consumers can carry on business by providing packaging and cleaning service only, it is reasonable to deem that Article 67 subparagraph 5 of the Trucking Transport Business Act and Article 56 of the same Act apply to

B. According to the records as to whether a private-use truck was provided for transportation of cargo at a cost, the defendant entered into a packing director service contract with D, and it is recognized that he used an estimate and a contract in which the phrase “it is not a trucking service provider but a trucking service provider” is printed. However, the following circumstances recognized by the court below according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① packing director service, the package packing, storage, placement, cleaning, as well as the transport (transport and loading) of the article, and ② the transport contract between D and a separate trucking service provider.