화물자동차운수사업법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged even though the Defendant merely received personnel expenses from C and did not receive any separate freight charges, or in the misapprehension of legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, it is deemed that the Defendant’s “transport” was stated “free of charge” when preparing the “string and contract” with C, but the director service provided by the Defendant to C includes the transport of mothing (transport and loading and unloading) along with the packing, arrangement, and cleaning work as well as the transport of mothing (transportation and loading and unloading) work as a main duty, and as long as C is a director and entered into a separate transport contract with the Defendant’s trucking service provider other than the Defendant and does not pay the expenses separately, the above “string and contract” is merely a means to avoid the application of the Trucking Transport Business Act, and the cost of the director service provided by the Defendant from C includes the cost of transporting mothing articles using the instant private-use truck, irrespective of its formal pretext.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.