The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant merely received KRW 700,000 from H, a customer, for personnel expenses and two truck, only as usage charges, and provided E-bridges, a private truck used by the Defendant for the convenience of removal and transportation work at the time (hereinafter “the instant bridge”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① "trucking transport business" under the Trucking Transport Business Act means a business that transports cargo for compensation using a truck in response to the request of another person (Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Trucking Transport Business Act); ② "Packing director" under the defendant's operation is a business that provides all services, such as packing, decomposition, transport, storage, assembly, arrangement, cleaning, etc. using human resources and trucks; although there is a difference between the general director's service that simply transports an article, the part of "transport" is still an essential element of the service; thus, the Trucking Transport Business Act applies to the act of the defendant's packing director using the truck using the truck, and for the same reason, it is reasonable to view that the service cost of the cargo transport is included in the service cost of the defendant's packing director, such as a truck and a bridge, and there is no special reason to view the service charge of the truck used in the transport of the article as a document or receipt.