화물자동차운수사업법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The application of the Trucking Transport Business Act to the packing directors in the summary of the grounds for appeal is unfair, and the defendant only received money as personnel expenses in making packing directors and did not provide private-use truck with compensation.
2. Determination 1) In light of the following circumstances, Article 67 subparag. 5 and Article 56 of the Trucking Transport Business Act does not apply to the packing directors service business where the Trucking Transport Business Act applies to the packing director service business, and there is no separate provision that Article 67 subparag. 5 and Article 56 of the same Act does not apply to the packing director service business; where a trucking transport business license is granted upon meeting the requirements prescribed by the Trucking Transport Business Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, a packing director service business may be run by legally providing a truck for compensation; and consumers are allowed to run a package director service business by providing a package and cleaning service only; it is reasonable to view that Article 67 subparag. 5 and Article 56 of the Trucking Transport Business Act applies to a person operating a packing director service business.2) The judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as follows: ① the defendant concludes a truck transport service contract with C and received 450,000 won for a cargo transport service, ② the defendant's provision of packing director and freight service separately from the contract.