2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the said assertion by clearly explaining the reasoning in detail in the part on “decision on the assertion of a justifiable act” of the judgment.

The court below established the following circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and duly examined by the court below and the court below, that is, the act of imposing an administrative fine upon a violation of Article 26 (1) 1 and Article 94 (3) 4 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, which is prohibited pursuant to the following circumstances. The act of "the act of a Class-I passenger transport business operator to refuse passengers or to let passengers get off on the bus without any justifiable reason" was established in the purport of establishing order in passenger transport service and promoting smooth and safe transport of passengers. The above provision is not the purport of imposing an obligation to get passengers to board a bus again against his will even if a person who is engaged in bus driving service stops a bus at a place other than the bus platform and leaves the bus platform, and in light of the method and method of crime, the act of crime in this case is extremely likely to cause confusion or harm to the legislative purport of the passenger transport service as a legitimate means or method, and it cannot be seen that there is a considerable possibility that the act of crime in this case may be more confusion in the form of the above passenger transport service.