logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.02.06 2017노672
여객자동차운수사업법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendants: (b) operated the instant vehicle with D, F, and H (hereinafter “D, etc.”) designated as the borrower; (c) on March 2, 2010; (d) on October 1, 2009; and (e) on September 16, 2010, the Defendants purchased the said vehicle from the said borrower and completed the entry into the said area; (d) the Prosecutor shall be sentenced to a judgment of acquittal on the instant charges as long as the indictment was instituted after the lapse of the statute of limitations from the date on which the said entry into the said area was completed.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendants cannot accept the defendants' assertion, because it is difficult to recognize the fact that the defendants purchased a knife from the borrower and completed the knife relationship, according to the following circumstances.

1. Above all, the Defendants purchased the share of franchis from local borrowers, including D.

The trading contract was not prepared at the time of assertion.

In other words, in the case of F, there is no contract itself, and in the case of D and H, it was prepared by the J and the legal dispute that the complainant occurred, which was prepared around August 2015, and its title is limited to the "vehicle Transfer Contract" in the case of D, and D prepared a vehicle transfer contract at the time of sale at the court of the original instance.

Although the above contract was written later as seen earlier, H prepared the contract at the time of the first sale.

After making a statement, a written contract was prepared later.

It is difficult to make a statement inconsistent with the time of preparation of the contract, such as the statement that it made.

(2) In addition, in the original judgment, F has received the purchase price with the father’s account.

He stated that he did not know whether he received the cash account after the statement, and H determined the sale price as KRW 41.5 million and received the amount after deducting all the expenses.

arrow