logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.11.17 2016고정1525
화물자동차운수사업법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No owner or user of a private-use truck shall provide or lease such private-use truck commercially for transport purposes.

Nevertheless, from around 09:55 on July 20, 2016 to around 10:10 on the same day, the Defendant provided C vehicles, a private cargo vehicle, at the front parking lot of Gwangju Mine-gu B apartment 205 to transport at the fare of KRW 960,000 from the residents of the foregoing 205 Dong 308 at the front parking lot of Gwangju Mine-gu 205 Dong, and to transport to the front North west 30,000.

Accordingly, the defendant provided a private-use truck for the purpose of cargo transport at a cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A motor vehicle registration certificate (Evidence 23 pages);

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 67 subparagraph 7 and 56 of the Trucking Transport Business Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the defendant's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant did not use the private-use truck as stated in the judgment and used it for the purpose, not for the purpose of operating it. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute "act of providing it for the transportation of cargo" as stipulated in Article 67 subparagraph 7 of the Trucking Transport Business Act. However, the defendant's act is deemed to constitute "act of providing it for the transportation of cargo" as stipulated in Article 67 subparagraph 7 of the Trucking Transport Business Act, since the defendant's act is already provided for the transportation of cargo for consideration at the time when he agrees to the compensation for transportation of cargo and moves it into the private-use truck as stated in the facts charged, the above private-use truck has already been provided for the transportation

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

arrow