The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) D is a driver employed by the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”), and D does not bring into C, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, a passenger Newcom, E 39 passenger cars and F 25 passenger cars (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant passenger cars”).

However, the judgment of the court below that found D guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that D is a driver of the branch of C, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, i.e., (i) the witness D operated passenger transport business using the respective passenger vehicles registered in the name of C under the condition that the Defendant would receive KRW 300,000 from January 16, 2015 to April 15, 2015, under the condition that the Defendant would receive KRW 300,000 per month from January 16, 2015.

“A consistent and specific statement to the effect that “A” is consistently and specifically stated, ② D is subject to criminal punishment due to the entry of each of the instant seats, and even when D is subject to criminal punishment, there is no motive to file a false accusation against the Defendant; ③ Witness G also entered the investigative agency and the court of the lower judgment in the investigative agency and the court of the lower judgment, and operated the Fcomponion by being employed by D. The witness was employed by D.

The statement "......... (4) each statement prepared and delivered by D to the defendant (the page 81 of the evidence record) shall be repaid in all installments and oil prices so far.

The phrase “the Defendant’s assertion that D is a driver employed in C and that this is inconsistent with the Defendant’s assertion. ⑤ The Defendant stated “600,000 won for the entrance fee of February” at the lower left-hand side of the main body (Evidence No. 35 pages) delivered to D through J, and as a result of the written appraisal, it was evaluated that the Defendant’s penology of “60,000 won” and the Defendant’s penology of the penology were proven to have been commercial.