A. The Defendant is not guilty of the fact that the article of the cargo vehicle scheduled on the day was loaded in several cargo vehicles used by the Defendant at the time of the wind (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and there was no separate money for the use of the instant vehicle. Thus, the Defendant did not provide the truck for private use for transport of cargo.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the circumstances revealed by the court below's decision as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, i.e., ① the defendant asserts that "it is inevitable to carry the cargo article on the day to arrive late," but according to the witness E's trial testimony, the above cargo article on the day, the defendant appears to have immediately interfered with the above cargo article on the day. Rather, according to the above cargo article on the witness E, the defendant was deemed to have exceeded a considerable portion of the cargo article on the day, and on the day, it was deemed that the cargo article on the day exceeded a considerable portion of the cargo article on the day." The above change contents of the defendant's above change by the defendant to the effect that it is difficult to obtain the cargo article on the day, ② the defendant did not receive expenses directly from the client for the use of the article on the day.

Even if the court below properly pointed out, the cost of transportation of the article that the above client pays is included in the cost of transportation of the article by using a legitimate truck for transportation of cargo. The defendant gains the profit of using the defendant's vehicle, not a legitimate truck for transportation of cargo on the day, to avoid the cost of transportation of the article (the article of the cargo vehicle prior to the arrival of the day).