The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the refusal of boarding.

Nevertheless, it is not a legitimate execution of official duties to control the refusal of passengers by misunderstanding this.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Relevant provisions of the relevant provisions, the Act on the Development of Taxi Transport Business, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the corresponding provisions of the Enforcement Rule are as stated in the relevant statutes.

2) The Ministry of Construction and Transportation distributed to each City/Do around May 2015 by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation to the National Land Planning and Transportation’s “Control Manual on the Refusal of Taxi Boarding” of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation refers to the following cases where the said manual can be seen as a refusal of boarding.

An act of a passenger who stops with his/her intent to string passengers, or who leaves a taxi with his/her front of passengers (including where it turns on or leaves, all the cases where it turns on or leaves), but without any care, leaves the taxi and leaves the taxi for a long time after a passenger gets on board, and a passenger gets off and departs from the taxi.

In full view of the relevant provisions and the National Land Planning and Transportation’s “The lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence,” prior to the specific determination of the act of inducing the use of other passing vehicles and refusing to take passengers (i.e., refusing to take passengers on a short distance or calling for a long distance passenger) and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the first instance court, the Defendant refused to take passengers without justifiable grounds, and the acts of public officials in Seoul Metropolitan City traffic guidance and its employees can be sufficiently recognized as constituting legitimate performance of official duties.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit on different premises.

(1)