When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a person who drives a dump truck of 24 tons of load load B.

The driver of a vehicle shall not interfere with the measurement of the load of the vehicle by operating the vehicle off the specified location of the control equipment.

Nevertheless, at around 14:52 on March 11, 2020, the Defendant driven the dump truck at the seat of the Incheon International Airport Business Office, along the fare lawsuit, and passed through the fare lawsuit, without passing through the dump lane where the loaded load measuring equipment is installed, and passing through the ordinary dump lane without passing through the dump lane. From that point of time to March 15:06, as shown in the list of crimes in the annexed sheet of crimes, the Defendant, from that point of time, passed the ordinary dump lane without passing through the dump lane where the loaded load measuring equipment is installed.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the measurement of vehicle load as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the documents evidencing the defendant's legal statement and the evidence of vehicles violating restriction on operation, the certificate of the vehicle violating Hipas, and photographic data of North Incheon (Seoul Myeon);

1. The prosecutor stated in the indictment Article 115 subparag. 5 of the Act and Articles 115 subparag. 5 and 78(3) of the Act as applicable to the pertinent law to criminal facts and the applicable law to the selection of punishment. In light of the content of the crime, it is obvious that the above provision is a clerical error in the “Article 78 subparag. 5 and Article 78(1) of the Road Act”, and the above provision does not give any substantial disadvantage to the defendant’s exercise of his right to defense. Thus, it shall be corrected ex officio without going through the amendment procedure to the indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9743, Apr. 14, 2006, etc.). The decision of each fine is made ex officio without going through the amendment procedure to the indictment.

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment include the fact that the defendant acknowledged the crime and that the general lower is not deemed to have entered the lane in order to avoid over-control.