logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2013.05.09 2013고정234
여객자동차운수사업법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a driver who owns a cargo vehicle (one-time call boom) that is a knife 6-line truck;

1. On July 1, 2012: (a) around 12:11, in the Dong-gu, Yancheon-gu, Yancheon-gu, Yancheon-gu, Yancheon-gu, An act in the form of passenger transport service by receiving KRW 4,000, a passenger who did not possess cargo by using the above C Freight in front of the womb in the city of Yan-gu, Yandong-gu, Yan-gu,

2. The same month;

4. At around 18:15, at the same time, in the East-dong, Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-si, the passenger who did not possess the cargo by using the above CF to transport the cargo and receive KRW 3,000 from 3,00,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Determination on each accusation and each CD attorney’s assertion

1. The Defendant’s defense counsel at the summary of the assertion was sentenced to a fine on November 24, 2012 due to a crime of violating the Passenger Transport Service Act, which read, “the Defendant committed an act in the form of passenger transport business by transporting passengers who do not possess cargo by using a truck on May 8, 2012, around 13:36, around 12:01, around 15:36, and around 11:36, around 15, 2012.” The said judgment becomes final and conclusive on November 24, 2012. Since each of the instant case’s commercial transport acts was repeated with a single and continuous intention as one of the acts of business, the legal interests and interests are identical and continuous.

As such, the above-mentioned case constitutes a single comprehensive crime, and thus, the res judicata extends to the facts charged in this case.

2. The judgment is a single comprehensive crime, which is a single crime under substantive law, because the perpetrator has repeatedly committed the act and is anticipated to repeat the crime under the continued criminal intent, and it does not seem to be difficult to determine whether it has specified "business" in the prohibition regulations, etc.

arrow