beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not know that the crime stated in paragraph 2 of the judgment below constituted a violation of the Passenger Transport Service Act.
B. In light of the fact that the crime of violation of passenger transport business as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment below's holding that the defendant committed a violation of the passenger transport business as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below was committed as a result of the defendant's failure to refuse to comply with the request for entrance business by Leh-to-fol Co., Ltd. which is the customer, and the crime of fraud as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below was committed to preserve the enemy who suffered from the defendant's entry business, and there are circumstances to consider the circumstances, and the defendant fully discharged the damage to the defendant, the punishment (eight months)
2. Determination
A. In a case where a person does not punish a person in accordance with Article 16 of the Criminal Act regarding his/her assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles does not mean a simple case of law, but it is generally accepted that an act constitutes a crime but, in his/her own special circumstances, it does not constitute a crime that is permitted by the law, and thus, if there are justifiable grounds, he/she shall not be punishable. As such, the circumstance that the defendant had knowledge that his/her act was subject to punishment under the law is merely a site of the law, and it does not constitute a
It cannot be deemed an act due to a mistake in law, unless it is actively and mistakenly perceived (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1566, Oct. 11, 1991; 2010Do15260, Oct. 13, 201, etc.). In this case, the Defendant’s assertion of the above legal principles by misunderstanding of the legal principles was not actively included in the grounds for cancellation of special prohibition on the premise of general prohibition of a certain act, but rather, it was argued that his act was generally prohibited.