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

Defendant

A is a driver of cargo vehicle B 4.5 tons and is engaged in live fish distribution business.

When the driver of a truck, the maximum load capacity of which is at least 4.5 tons, passes through a lawsuit for entry fees on a national highway, he/she shall pass along the lane where load measurement equipment is installed.

However, around 11:56 on December 4, 2016, the Defendant operated the said vehicle on the roads near the construction site located in Korea, the Gwangju Mine-dong 553-1, and operated the said vehicle on the roads near the construction site of the construction site, using the condition where the cargo dedicated is installed, and did not pass through the lane where the loading quantity measuring equipment is installed.

The Defendant, including that, from around that time to January 25, 2017, did not pass through the lane where the loading quantity measuring equipment was installed in the same way 40 times at the vicinity of the Korean Road Corporation, Gwangju metropolitan business office, as shown in the schedule of crime committed in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each accusation and documentary evidence of vehicles violating restrictions on operation;

1. Application of investigation reports (related to the submission of additional data on violating vehicles) and statutes concerning the current status of violation of the measuring lane;

1. Article 115 of the Act and subparagraph 5 of Article 115 of the Act on the Roads of which the punishment is selected for the crimes, and Article 78 (3) of the Act;

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. In addition, considering all sentencing factors indicated in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it appears that the crime of this case appears to have been committed under the circumstance where the law lacks awareness of the law because it reflects the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, there is no traffic record, and it was no time to operate the 4.5 tons of cargo, etc.