여객자동차운수사업법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (main part of the facts charged) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to each of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant merely arranged a car rental contract as a travel agency and did not conclude each of the instant lending contracts on behalf of the rental car company.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination, and the prosecutor has served in the first instance prior to the remanding of the case, while maintaining the original facts charged against the defendant around the third above.
The facts charged are modified as described in paragraph 2-A, and the facts charged are as follows.
In addition to the contents as stated in the port, the applicable provisions of the law added "Article 30 of the Criminal Act" to the primary applicable provisions of the law, and the court prior to the remand changed the object of adjudication by permitting it. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.
3. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant
A. The summary of the facts charged 1) On April 201, 201, the Defendant: (a) entered into a contract to lend a vehicle for 48 hours in the capacity of the agent of the Hatopy, Co., Ltd., as to the vehicle leasing business of the Hatopy for the said 48 hours; (b) entered into a contract to KRW 118,000,000, not for the rental agreement reported by the Hatopy; (c) the Hatopy Co., Ltd. did not implement the rental agreement by lending the said vehicle to the said E in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said contract; and (d) the Defendant did not implement the said rental agreement by lending the said vehicle to the said E on April 4, 2011.