If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is the owner of the vehicle B, and C is the employee of the defendant.

C On May 8, 2008, at around 00:39, Sl. Sl. Sl. Sl. Sl. Sl. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa

Accordingly, the defendant C, who is an employee of the defendant, committed a violation as above in relation to the defendant's business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a summary order (Ulsan District Court 2008 Highest 18987);

1. Article 100 (2), Article 98 (1) 2, and Article 59 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 9730 of May 27, 2009) that provides applicable legal provisions to facts constituting an offense and that provides for the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. C’s violation of vehicle operation restriction around March 16, 2007, which is an employee of the defendant, around 01:26

On April 23, 2007, the defendant's employee, C's violation of vehicle operation restriction around 01:20.

On October 9, 2007, C’s violation of vehicle operation restriction around 15:47, 2007, which is the employee of the defendant, lost its validity retroactively according to the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality. Accordingly, since each of the above facts charged does not constitute a crime, the above facts charged shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.