Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the owner of a private-use truck B (5 tons of Lonno), C (trad 2.5 tons of private-use truck), who operates the removal center in B in Seocheon-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D.

The owner of a private-use truck shall not provide or lease the private-use truck for the purpose of transportation for a fee.

Nevertheless, around August 2, 2012, the Defendant provided a private-use truck for cargo transport at a cost by receiving KRW 80,000,000 from the residents of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Apartment Building 5.11 and by taking advantage of the above private-use truck to the eightth floor of the same Gu F Building in the above apartment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to each accusation and each investigation report;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 67 subparagraph 5 and 56 of the Trucking Transport Business Act that choose a penalty, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion on the claim of the defendant under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is argued that, in the case of packing directors' services, the cost is set at personnel expenses, so even if the defendant used the private-use truck for packing business, it cannot be deemed that the defendant provided the private-use truck for compensation. However, in light of the fact that the packing director's service accounts for the transportation along with the packing, storage, posting, cleaning, etc. of the article, and the customer who requested packing directors did not bear separate transportation expenses, it is reasonable to view that the cost of packing director's services received by the defendant includes the user fee of the private-use truck used for transport of this article. Thus, the defendant's above assertion