The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to Articles 4(1) and 14(2) of the Passenger Transport Business Act (hereinafter “Act”) and Article 8(1)1 of the Guidelines for Handling Affairs of License Affairs of Private Taxi Transport Business in Permitted-si, the gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the number of persons engaged in private taxi transport business must have a career of accident-free driving for not less than three years counting from the date of final driving.

However, the Defendant applied for the authorization of transfer and takeover of a private taxi transport business, as described in the facts charged in the instant case, around November 7, 2017, and was the perpetrator.

On September 28, 2017, by submitting a certificate of personal traffic accident driving experience and hiding the occurrence of the accident, and obtaining a license for personal taxi transport business in the name of the defendant.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant constitutes “a person who obtained a license for passenger transport business by improper means” under Article 90 subparag. 2 of the Act, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is prohibited from obtaining a license for passenger transport business by unlawful means.

Nevertheless, on November 7, 2017, the Defendant obtained a private taxi license with the authorization of acquisition of a private taxi license on November 13, 2017 after obtaining the authorization of acquisition of a private taxi license from the public official E working-level in charge of public officials in charge, with the knowledge that only a person who has experienced an accident within three years at the time of applying for the authorization of acquisition of a private taxi license in the name D at the time of the application for the authorization of acquisition of a private taxi license from the public official in charge of public service.

3. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged constituted a case where there is no proof of a crime for the following reasons, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty.

A. The Defendant’s legal statement, E-written statement, personal taxi transport business.