logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.01.13 2016고정894
여객자동차운수사업법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Any person who intends to operate passenger transport business shall obtain a license or make a registration from the competent authority.

Nevertheless, at around 01:10 on July 17, 2016, the Defendant carried C (the remaining, 65 years of age) a rocketing car owned by the Defendant on the road in front of the Cheongyang-gu Cheongyang-dong, Chungcheongnam-do and the road in front of the Cheongyang-si, Chungcheongnamyang-do, and without obtaining a license or registration from the competent authority, and carried C (the remaining, 65 years of age) on the same day, and carried it on a commercial passenger transport business using the motor vehicle at KRW 40,00,00 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A comprehensive statement of vehicle details;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act and Articles 90 subparagraph 1 and 4 (1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act concerning facts constituting an offense and the alternative punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant’s assertion does not constitute a crime of violating the Passenger Transport Service Act, since the Defendant did not regard the benefit of the instant transport service and there are many vehicles that transport proxy drivers across the country.

2. The Defendant returned KRW 30,000 out of the transport charges of KRW 40,00,000 paid by C, and paid KRW 22,00 with oil expenses, etc., thereby causing losses, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute a violation of the Passenger Transport Service Act.

However, as long as the Defendant received transportation charges from C, the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of commercial transport, and thus, whether the Defendant obtained benefits is irrelevant to the recognition of a violation of the Passenger Transport Service Act.

On the other hand, the defendant's act is not illegal because other vehicles transport a substitute driver for consideration.

I, other.

arrow