A. The Defendants did not know that each of the crimes in the holding of the lower judgment constituted a violation of the Passenger Transport Service Act.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant C, G, H, I, J, K, K, P, S, U, Z, AB, and AG: fine of KRW 2 million: KRW 1.5 million; Defendant F, Defendant D, E, M, M, N,O, Q, Q, R, T, X, X, AA, AC, AD, AE, AE, and AF, each of which is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides, “The act of misunderstanding that one’s act constitutes a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding” does not mean a simple legal site. It is the purport that it shall not be punishable in a case where it is recognized that the act of misunderstanding that one’s act does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes, but it does not constitute an act permitted by the Acts and subordinate statutes in the case of a general crime, and that it shall not be punishable in a case where there is a justifiable reason to mislead misunderstanding of misunderstanding of the legal principles (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5511, Nov. 23, 2006). Even if the Defendants’ assertion is acknowledged, it does not correspond

It is well-known that there is a justifiable reason for such a misunderstanding.

There is no circumstance to determine the person.

Therefore, the Defendants’ misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Defendant F, H, L, M, P, T, U,AD, AE, AE, and AF have no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case; Defendant D, E, K, N, Q, Q, R, Z, and AG have no record of criminal punishment for the same crime; Defendant G had no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine; Defendant G had no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine; Defendant C, I, J, J, O, V, X, X, Y, and AB.