logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2014.10.02 2014노264
여객자동차운수사업법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (main part of the facts charged) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to each of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant merely arranged a car rental contract as a travel agency and did not conclude each of the instant lending contracts on behalf of the rental car company.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination, and the prosecutor has served in the first instance prior to the remanding of the case, while maintaining the original facts charged against the defendant around the third above.

The facts charged are modified as described in paragraph 2-A, and the facts charged are as follows.

In addition to the contents as stated in the port, the applicable provisions of the law added "Article 30 of the Criminal Act" to the primary applicable provisions of the law, and the court prior to the remand changed the object of adjudication by permitting it. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in a travel agency business while operating Qua.

On October 9, 2008, the Defendant entered into a contract to lend the said company’s automobile rental business to S for 11 hours at the office of the said travel company located in R, as an agent for the said company, with respect to the said company’s automobile rental business, and entered into a contract to KRW 42,400,000, not for the rental agreement reported by the said company, and the said company did not comply with the said contract by lending the said vehicle to S in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said contract.

The defendant, including this, from that time to April 22, 2010, shall be attached to the list of crimes.

arrow