도로법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of reasons for appeal: Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles
A. The freight driven by the Defendant’s employees C shall be deemed to have set up an electronic display sign language at the Cheong River Business Office at the time when Cheong River Business Office passed, and the Defendant’s employees demanded C to comply with the re-measurement.
C Even upon receiving the above demand, C did not comply with the re-measurement without any justifiable reason.
B. C was demanded by the Defendant to re-measurement the employees of the road management agency at the Sungnam Business Office.
Since the obligation to comply with the re-measurement includes the obligation to comply with the measurement as at the time of the initial measurement, C has to comply with the re-measurement at the Sungnam's place of business, which is the condition of the first measurement at the time of the initial measurement (Cheongsan's place of business).
Nevertheless, C complies with the re-measurement by changing her place of business to 'five axis', which constitutes "an act of failing to comply with the measurement of vehicle load" under Article 77 (4) of the Road Act.
(c)
Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On the premise that the crime of refusing to comply with the measurement of loading quantity under Articles 77(4) and 115 subparag. 4 of the Road Act is established, the court below held that the driver of a specific vehicle must have a specific and realistic loading quantity measurement request in order to establish the crime of refusing to measure loading quantity under Articles 77(4) and 115 subparag. 4 of the Road Act, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, while explaining in detail the grounds for the determination, alone, has requested C to demand a measurement or remeasurement under Article 77(4) of the Road Act.
It is difficult to see otherwise and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment closely with the record, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment is determined.