Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the driver of the CBR truck.

Where a person intends to engage in business activities in the type of passenger transport business, he/she shall obtain a license or registration accordingly.

Nevertheless, on June 14, 2013, at around 14:00 on June 14, 2013, the Defendant, without a license or registration, carried out a type of passenger transport business, such as: (a) two customers who are not in possession of cargo at a house after leaving the said vehicle; (b) getting off the back of the E Hospital located in Gangnam-si D; and (c) receiving a charge of KRW 6,700.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Voluntary statement of a public official;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs and case-related photographs

1. Relevant Article 90 subparagraph 1 of the Passenger Transport Service Act and Article 4 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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 of the provisional payment order argues that since the defendant's argument that the defendant is not a person with alcohol addiction, the sib is an act that does not violate social rules because the sib is born upon the request of the E Hospital because the sib is not a person with alcohol addiction.

To recognize a legitimate act, which is an act that does not violate social rules under Article 20 of the Criminal Code, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method; (c) balance of the interests of protected interests and infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementaryness that there is no other means or method other than the act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do16827, Mar. 14, 2013) Examining the Defendant’s assertion in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, even if considering the motive and circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s attitude toward the bareboat, the Defendant engaged in a type of business of passenger transport business by putting the brace on the brace.