The judgment below

Part on the violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act is reversed.

Defendant 3,00. 3,000

1. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication of this court;

A. (1) The lower court acquitted the entire facts charged of the instant case.

With regard to this, the prosecutor appealed on the whole judgment of the court below on the ground of misconception of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

(2) Prior to remand, the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Prosecutor’s appeal was rejected.

Therefore, the prosecutor appealed to the entire judgment of the court prior to the remand on the ground of violation of the law and misunderstanding of legal principles.

(3) Of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the main text of Article 3(3) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “ Trucking Act”), thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In determining the above part, the prosecutor's appeal was dismissed on the ground that the above part was reversed and remanded, the fact that the public electronic records were destroyed, the fact that the public electronic records were not recorded, and the public prosecutor's appeal was dismissed.

B. The scope of the judgment in this Court is limited to the violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act among the judgment below since the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as the fact that the court's appeal is separately determined as to the use of electronic records, such as public records, etc. among the facts charged in this case, and the use of electronic records, etc.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the Defendant dismissed the permitted truck as a truck with the restriction on supply, which practically increased the number of vehicles, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the violation of the Trucking Transport Business Act on the ground that the total number of vehicles did not increase and only the composition cost of the truck can not be seen as an increased lane. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

3. Determination

A. The main points of this part of the facts charged are to permit the supply of scrapped trucks.