The judgment below

Among the parts against Defendant A, the part guilty and the part not guilty are in violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act.

1. Progress of judgment and scope of judgment of this court;

A. The court below's decision 1) The court below found the Defendants guilty on the grounds that the Defendants were not guilty on each part of the charges, and each part of the charges was found guilty on the grounds that the Defendants were not guilty on the grounds that the Defendants were guilty on the grounds that they were not guilty, on the grounds that there were errors and misapprehension of the facts and legal principles as to the acquitted portion, and that the Defendants were not guilty on the grounds that they were not guilty. The court below rejected the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants were not guilty, and that the Defendants were not guilty on the grounds that they were not guilty, and that they were not guilty on the grounds that they were erroneous facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquitted portion. The court below dismissed all the appeals by the Defendants and the prosecutors prior to the return.

2) The Supreme Court's judgment of remanding the case was issued by the prosecutor. The Supreme Court held that the change of a vehicle permitted by the trucking business operator to be supplied by the trucking business operator on the violation of the trucking transport business law does not constitute "motor vehicle scrapping" and thus does not constitute "motor vehicle scrapping," and thus, it is not subject to the report of change as prescribed by the proviso of Article 3 (3) of the Act, and it is subject to the permission of change as prescribed by the main text (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Du50474, Feb. 18, 2016; 2015Do15842, Mar. 24, 2016). Therefore, if the defendants changed the part of the judgment of the court prior to remanding the case to a limited truck with limited supply permitted by the trucking transport business, the court below reversed the part of the conviction against the defendant limited company B, limited liability company C, and defendant A and the part of the non-guilty part of the judgment.