beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s fuel subsidies against the Plaintiff on July 30, 2014.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a land owner of B truck (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and is a person who enters into an entrustment contract with an official logistics company and engages in cargo transport business.
B. On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence (Ulsan District Court 2012Gohap314) for one-year imprisonment with labor for a general motor vehicle fire prevention crime (hereinafter “instant criminal act”), and both the Plaintiff and the prosecutor appealed, but the judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on May 8, 2013 (Ulsan High Court 2012No741) and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 16th of the same month.
The Defendant (Plaintiff) was a driver of cargo vehicles belonging to the cargo joint and several sub-chapter C from January 2004 to June 201, who served as a cargo driver at the cargo joint and several sub-chapter CD.
On June 16, 2012, the Defendant, at around 16:00 on June 16, 2012, was instructed by F, G, etc. at the cargo joint and several sub-branch offices E, and purchased 9 largephones and 2 large-sized vehicles from H after society on June 18, 2012, planned a fire prevention, etc. against non-members to maximize the effects of the strike from the cargo solidarity I, and was called by the phone and the phone calls that need to be called from the said F, G with the approval of the said F, and G, around June 21, 2012, the Defendant carried out the above 3 large 1 large 1 and large 3 large 1 large 3 large 1 large 3 large 3 large 1 in the vicinity of the freight parking lot located in K through a telephone contact with J.
Accordingly, the J and N of the cargo joint and several M Branch caused a rush fire to the cargo vehicles over 20 times from June 24, 2012 to 03:47.
C. On July 2014, the Defendant issued a truck fuel subsidy for six months on the ground that the instant criminal act was committed against the Plaintiff.