The judgment below

Defendant E shall be reversed.

Defendant

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

Defendant

E.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

C misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, three lots of bags were loaded at the first time, and three persons were able to get off from the new Youngdong hotel, and two persons were each with a double vinyl in the eline hotel. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty, even if the Defendant did not engage in a type of passenger transport business.

The punishment (fine 700,000) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Defendant

Do-based Do-based truck has been subject to a fine for violation of the Passenger Transport Business Act if the person who controls the Do-type truck has passed over the police, and if the person has passed over the local government, the trucking transport business Act has been applied and the fine for negligence has been imposed.

The punishment (fine 500,000) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Defendant

E (Finitely unfair) The sentence of a fine of KRW 2,00,000 imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misapprehension of C’s legal principles or mistake of facts, and the written statement prepared by M, Defendant C, at around 01:20 on September 24, 2013, can be sufficiently convicted of this part of the facts charged that Defendant C operated Ma, which, at around 01:20 on September 24, 2013, 6 of the Jung-gu Seoul Central District District, was using a Ma, which, in front of the two-party hotel in Seoul Central District, had been using a truck with a charge of KRW 22,00,00 in return for the operation of the Ma from the front

(The facts alleged by the Defendant C do not interfere with this part of the facts charged because the facts alleged by the Defendant C are not interfered with the finding of the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the facts

Defendant

D. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principles of D.