Whether the subject of punishment under Article 90 Subparag. 1 of the Passenger Transport Service Act includes “a case in which a passenger has been transported by promising the passenger to pay the transport charge, although not actually paid the transport charge” (affirmative), and whether it includes cases in which it is objectively deemed that the passenger has commenced the transport according to an agreement with the passenger, based on the objective view of “transporting passengers” (affirmative)

Article 90 Subparag. 1 of the Passenger Transport Service Act punishs a person who engages in an act of passenger transport business type using a motor vehicle other than the motor vehicle prescribed in Article 2 without obtaining a license under Article 4(1) of the same Act. Here, “passenger transport business” refers to a business (Article 2 subparag. 3 of the same Act) of transporting passengers with compensation by using a motor vehicle in compliance with the demand from others. In light of the legislative intent and contents of the aforementioned provision, even if the transport fee was not actually paid, if the transport fee was promised to pay the transport fee and transport the passengers, it shall be punished, and furthermore, the “transport of passengers” shall include the cases where the transport of passengers is objectively deemed to have commenced according to an agreement with passengers, rather than the cases where the transport of passengers is completed.

Article 2 subparag. 1, 3, Article 4(1), and Article 90 subparag. 1 of the Passenger Transport Service Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013No2399 Decided April 23, 2014

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

1. The facts charged in this case

On March 15, 2013, at around 13:00, the Defendant committed an act of typeing passenger transport business by having one passenger who does not possess cargo on (automobile number omitted) carn trucks (one call bomb), in front of the Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-si, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-do.

2. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced the defendant to a fine of 300,000 won on the ground that the defendant cannot be punished for a violation of the above law merely on the ground that the purpose of receiving transportation charges was to receive transportation charges, and that the defendant could not be punished for the violation of the above law, since the "passenger transport business" under the Passenger Transport Service Act, which is the applicable law of this case, refers to the business of transporting passengers by using a motor vehicle, and the above law does not punish attempted crimes. Thus, in light of the form and content of the provision, in order to find the charge of this case guilty, the court below should acknowledge the fact that the defendant actually received transportation charges.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Article 90 Subparag. 1 of the Passenger Transport Service Act punishs a person who engages in a type of passenger transport business without obtaining a license pursuant to Article 4(1) of the same Act. Here, “passenger transport business” refers to a business (Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the same Act) of transporting passengers with compensation by using a motor vehicle in response to the demand from another person. In light of the legislative intent and contents of the aforementioned provision, even if the transport fee was not actually paid, if the transport service was promised to pay the transport fee and transport the passengers, it shall be punished, and furthermore, it shall include not only the case where the transport of passengers was completed, but also the case where the transport service was commenced according to an agreement with the passengers, based on objective view to the transport of passengers.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court that the lower court maintained: (a) around 13:00 on March 15, 2013, the Defendant: (b) on the front of the Seo-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-dong Sung-dong Madong Madong, Nonindicted 1 and his denial of Nonindicted 2 around the time Nonindicted 2 stopped in order to board his call Do; (c) on the part of his taxi, Nonindicted 2 discovered it; and (d) on the part of his own taxi, the Defendant 2 was punished by the Defendant to stop the Defendant’s call Ban while the Defendant was 2 meters away; and (c) on the part of the Defendant, the taxi was able to receive passenger fares from the passengers; and (c) on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant did not receive the transport fare from the passengers; and (d) the Defendant did not receive the transport fare from the passengers.

Therefore, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty solely on the ground that the transport charge was not actually paid, even though the lower court deliberated on whether there was an agreement on the transport as above, whether the Defendant’s moving of call Banbs can be deemed to have commenced according to the agreement (the Defendant asserted only that the Defendant moved a vehicle for parking) and should have determined whether to be guilty or not. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 90 subparag. 1 and subparag. 3 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)