All appeals filed by A, B, and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Prosecutor 1) In the event of misconception of facts (not guilty part against Defendant D): Defendant D, which can easily obtain information due to the narrowest relationship between the market for the Y and competition enterprises, is difficult to view that P merely believed that P’s employees would use for business purposes. Therefore, Defendant D was aware of P’s illegal siren business from the beginning and it was evident that it would obviously lend Defendant D’s vehicle to Defendant A, but it was erroneous in the lower court’s decision that did not recognize the aiding and abetting act of Defendant D. (2) The lower court’s decision that did not recognize the aiding and abetting act of Defendant D’s illegal siren business. (2) The lower court’s decision that did not recognize the aiding and abetting act of Defendant D is erroneous, i.e., 2 years of suspended sentence for 10 months, 3 million won of imprisonment, c., Defendant C, E, and F: each fine of KRW 5 million.

B. Defendant A and B1 [the part concerning the crime of violating the Passenger Transport Service Act] Defendant A did not directly lend a vehicle, but leased the vehicle to its members by borrowing the vehicle from eitcar companies. The act of Defendant A constitutes Article 34(1), not Article 28(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act, and therefore, the act of the Defendant A constitutes Article 34(1), not Article 92 subparag. 11 and Article 34(1) of the said Act, and therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in applying Article 90 subparag. 4 and Article 28(1) of the said Act, not Article 92 subparag. 11 and Article 34(1) of the said Act.

Judgment

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged while clearly explaining the grounds for the determination of the facts charged by the prosecutor (not guilty part against Defendant D).

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the record, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor cannot be deemed as having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the court below’s judgment that acquitted the public prosecutor of this part of the facts charged was erroneous in matters of law, as alleged by the public prosecutor.