여객자동차운수사업법위반
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court.
All of the defendants' appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendants’ grounds for appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have convicted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case (excluding the portion without charge) on the grounds stated
In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on route passenger transport business.
2. As to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the violation of the Passenger Transport Service Act by using the name is as follows.
(1) Defendant A, without obtaining a license for passenger transport business, used part of a commercial motor vehicle, such as C, which is a transport business operator, in the name of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), from July 18, 2015 to October 3, 2015, and operated a route passenger transport business under the name of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).
(2) Defendant A, who is the actual representative of Defendant B’s Defendant B, committed the same act as that of the Defendant’s business.
B. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on this part of the charges on the ground that the Defendants’ act did not constitute “violation of prohibition of use of name under Article 12” under Article 90 subparag. 3 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, and thus, did not constitute “violation of prohibition of use
(1) Article 12(3) of the Passenger Transport Service Act prohibits a person, other than a transport business, from running a passenger transport business under the name of another person as well as running a passenger transport business under his/her own name.
(2) Among them, the former can be seen as using another person’s name, but in the latter case, it is merely limited to one’s own name, and it constitutes “using another’s name” under the Passenger Transport Service Act, a person, other than a transport business entity, uses the name of the transport business entity.