The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable for the Defendant to institute an indictment for the reason that the vehicle (E) used for towing is not a business vehicle, since the Defendant obtained a business permit for salvage towing vehicles and registered as a business operator.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged in the lower court that the vehicle (E) indicated in the facts charged was not a truck, but a truck did not engage in an act constituting “transport” even if it was a truck.

However, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion and acknowledged the facts charged by explaining detailed reasons in the second "the judgment on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion".

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted by the court below’s judgment, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment below.

(1) Article 67 Subparag. 7 and Article 56 of the Trucking Transport Business Act punishs “a person who owns or uses a private-use truck for the purpose of transporting or leasing the private-use truck with compensation.”

According to the evidence duly admitted, the defendant's use of the private-use truck (E) three times as stated in the facts charged and towing another vehicle for transport can be recognized.

(2) The fact that the Defendant obtained permission for personal trucking transport business (individual trucking transport business under the former Trucking Transport Business Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof) that is “business transporting cargo by using one trucking unit.”

However, the above circumstances do not relate to the establishment of the instant crime, and according to the Defendant’s individual trucking transport business license, the Defendant uses one “L” as a truck for business use.