The judgment below

The guilty part and the non-guilty part on the violation of trucking transport business are reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding the facts of guilty and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) heard the answer that it is possible to substitute and scrap from the Gwangju Metropolitan City Trucking Transport Business Association (hereinafter “Association”), and the Association received notification of the acceptance of the large-scale report of scrapping and scrapping and conducted the large-scale and scrapping process, there is a defect in the large-scale and scrapping procedure.

No loss has occurred to the buyer.

There is a defect in the family substitute or scrapping procedure;

Even if the Defendant did not recognize such facts, the Defendant did not recognize it.

B. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal principles (not guilty part) ① In the event of an event, such as false entry in the original copy of the process deed, false entry in the original copy of the process deed, false entry in the electronic records, etc., false entry in the electronic records, etc.: Defendant A, B, and D, if he/she reported the true use of a truck to a public official, he/she would have not accepted the report, and as the defect in acceptance of the report of large-scale and scraping is serious, the acceptance of large-scale and scraping report is null and void ab

Therefore, the fact that the automobile management system has different usage due to the acceptance of the report of automobile-scrapping, which is null and void, constitutes a false fact entry.

However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant A, B, and D of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

② Violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act: The judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the act of replacing the figure of a special-purpose truck with a general truck does not constitute an increase in the number of vehicles requiring permission for change, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) Improper sentencing: The lower court’s sentence (1,000,000 won) against Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly adopted and investigated the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.