The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that the defendant used a private-use truck, in providing packing director services, the private-use truck provided free of charge and only received the cost of packing director services, such as personnel expenses, so the defendant recognized that he provided a private-use truck for the purpose of transporting cargo for a cost, and the court below convicted the defendant of the violation of law and misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that the defendant stated "free provision of freight:" in the estimate and written contract prepared by the defendant when entering into a packing director contract can be acknowledged. However, while the defendant was operating a packaging director center at the time of the instant case, the packing director service belongs to the main part of the transportation of the article, as well as the packing, storage, placement, cleaning, and the transportation of the article (off and transportation). Thus, considering the fact that the defendant who provided packing director service is viewed to include all the vehicle charges used for transportation of the article in addition to personnel expenses, packing materials, and other consumption expenses, the payment that the defendant received from the customer is included in the form of transaction, it appears that the entry of the above contract is merely a formal statement in order to avoid the application of the Trucking Transport Business Act which prohibits the provision of the cargo for consideration. According to the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the court below, the fact that the defendant provided the cargo for consideration as stated in the judgment below is sufficiently recognized.