사기등
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.
1. Defendant A is the representative of (State)B, (State)C, and vice-chief E, and Defendant B, and (State)C are corporations with the purpose of trucking transport business. A.
Defendant
A1) An increase in the number of trucks by a person who has obtained permission for trucking transport business in violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act requires the permission of the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs to change the permitted number of trucks, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Nevertheless, the Defendant had expressed an increase in the general trucking transport business without obtaining the permission of change by registering the permitted special-use trucking transport business as a general truck. Although the Special-Purpose Trucking Trucking Trucking Trucking Trucking Transport Business Association does not allow a large-scale truck to be supplied as a general truck, the Defendant reported the permissible special-use trucking trucking to be supplied as a general truck and received the notification of change in the trucking transport business in the name of the president of the Association without obtaining the permission of change from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (hereinafter “F-type trucking Transport Business Association”). On May 2, 2008, the Defendant submitted the above notification to the 20-type trucking Transport Business Association and received the notification of change in the general trucking transport business.