The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) there was no cover on a private-use truck in which the Defendant walking a balone; (b) therefore, (c) there was no cover on the truck, and (d) there was no balking of balp

The defendant's defense of the defendant was found to have agreed in advance as a clerical error in the field of this case solely on the ground that the credibility of the defendant's defense is reduced and that H had conversations with the defendant's wife.

In light of the lack of recognition, the fact that the defendant provided a private-use truck for transport of cargo is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates an article center with the trade name “C”.

No person shall provide or lease a private car for compensation.

Nevertheless, at around 11:20 on July 29, 2016, the Defendant used D Apartment No. 201, 1402, 1402, and provided a private car for transportation by receiving KRW 1.2 million under the pretext of transporting the relevant article to G apartment for entertainment, which is a destination destination, using Epoter II freight car, other than a commercial automobile.

B. 1) The lower court determined that Article 56 of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides or leases a private-use truck for transport purposes at a cost (including expenses necessary for the operation of the truck) by the owner or user of the private-use truck.

Provided, That in cases falling under any ground prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the relevant Mayor/Do Governor may provide or lease land for transportation of cargo.

Article 67(7) of the Act provides that “A person shall be employed in violation of Article 56 of the Act.”