The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not receive the transportation cost, and did not transport the cargo to the village, even though he did not transport the cargo to the village.

However, it is difficult to access a cargo vehicle with a 5-metric tons narrower in length to access a cargo vehicle, making use of the truck of this case.

5 Ton, the cargo was intended to be transported only to the place where the cargo has to be loaded.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty, although the defendant did not transport the freight as stated in the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. In light of the fact that the economic situation of the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is not good, the lower court’s punishment (1 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal principles. The crime of violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act is established when a truck for private use is provided or leased for cargo transport. The defendant received transportation expenses (including expenses necessary for the operation of the truck, according to Article 56 of the above Act), and the truck of this case was provided for the transport of cargo. Thus, the crime of this case is established regardless of whether the defendant actually received transportation expenses or was charged with the transport of the entire carriage section.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s assertion does not interfere with the finding of guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. In full view of the following: (a) the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing was examined; (b) the reasons for sentencing specified in the instant argument and the record; and (c) the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 for an act of transporting cargo with the same vehicle as the instant truck on March 24, 2016, the lower court’s sentencing includes various reasons for sentencing asserted by the Defendant.