Defendant

Defendant

Song-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin

Attorney Song-young (National Election)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 781 Decided September 24, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles)

Although the Defendant was found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, it did not constitute passenger transport business under the Passenger Transport Service Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged in this case

On March 15, 2013, at around 13:00, the Defendant committed an act of typeing passenger transport business by having one passenger who does not possess cargo on (automobile number omitted) carn trucks (one call bomb), in front of the Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-si, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-do.

(b) Relevant legal principles;

1) The interpretation of penal provisions shall be strict, and the interpretation of penal provisions in the direction unfavorable to the defendant shall not be permitted as it is against the principle of no punishment without law (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3053, Dec. 10, 2009, etc.).

2) Article 90 Subparag. 1 of the Passenger Transport Service Act punishs a person who engages in a type of passenger transport business without obtaining a license under Article 4(1) of the same Act, using a motor vehicle other than that stipulated in Article 2. Here, the term “passenger transport business” refers to a business that transports passengers for a fee by using a motor vehicle in compliance with the demand of others, as stipulated in Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the same Act, and the same Act does not provide for punishment for attempted crimes.

C. Determination

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant operated (automobile number omitted), Kaz trucks (hereinafter “instant call Ban”) without obtaining a license from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs under the Passenger Transport Service Act, and the defendant, around 13:00 on March 15, 2013, on the ground that the defendant, at around 13:00 on March 15, 2013, on the street in front of the Sung-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and on the street of the Sungdong-gu (hereinafter “the customers of this case”).

However, according to the records, ① the Defendant’s net taxi that the Defendant intended to stop the call Ban in front of the instant customers, ② the Nonindicted 2, a taxi engineer, and reported to the police that he had the customers on board even though he did not have the Defendant’s identity. ③ Although the instant taxi was on board, the passengers did not start from the police with the relation where the said taxi was obstructed, ④ the police arrived at two to three minutes after the report, ④ the fact that the passengers got on the call Ban, ⑤ the fact that the Defendant did not receive transportation fees from the customers.

As examined earlier, “passenger transport business” under the Passenger Transport Service Act refers to the business of transporting passengers by using a motor vehicle in response to the demand from others, and since the above Act does not have a penal provision for attempted crimes, in order to be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, in light of the form and content of the provision, the fact that the transport fee was actually received should be acknowledged. Although the Defendant did not receive the transport fee, as long as he did not receive the transport fee, the Defendant cannot be punished for the violation of the above Act solely on the basis that there was the purpose or possibility of receiving the transport fee.

Therefore, although the facts charged in this case should be pronounced not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's appeal is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as stated in Article 2-1 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since there is no proof of facts constituting a crime for the same reason as stated in Article 2-2 (b) of the above Act, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of the defendant is publicly notified pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act

Judge Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Judge)