Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,200,00.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a mutual transfer center in B.

The owner or user of a private-use truck shall not provide or lease such private-use truck commercially for transport of cargo.

Nevertheless, around 09:30 on January 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) loaded and unloaded the cargo loaded on the third floor of the above building by using E (1.3 tons, sridges) in front of the D main points located in Yasan-si, Yasan-si; (b) transported the cargo unloaded to Seoul, and (c) received 650,000 won for transportation of cargo.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. On-site photographs;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (no one shall confirm whether an elevator exists in a building moving director's animals), a report on investigation (for persons requested by a director, referring to the terms of the contract);

1. Article 67 of the relevant Act and Articles 67 subparagraph 5 and 56 of the alternative trucking Transport Business Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant transported the instant bridge vehicles without compensation.

The argument is asserted.

In full view of the fact that the business of this case is a comprehensive provision of services related to transport including the upper and lower parts of this article, and that it is the main part of the service of this case, the defendant entered into a contract with the customer on the whole of the directors of this case, and did not calculate the cost by stages, and that the defendant transported the article on the ground of the transfer using the instant vehicle at the residence located in the third floor, the service fee of this case received by the defendant was included in the service fee of this case.

As such, the defendant's argument is without merit.