A. After ascertaining the existence of a measuring device for loading quantity, the Defendant passed a water charge station on the way of a general cargo-stamp, and was not notified from the relevant charge office of the violation of the Road Act as text messages.

Therefore, since the defendant believed that he had lawfully passed through the lane with the loading quantity measuring equipment, there was no awareness of illegality, and there was a justifiable reason for misunderstanding.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that a person’s act of misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime under the law shall not be punishable only when there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. It does not mean a simple case of the site of law. Generally, in a case where a crime is committed, but a mistake is recognized that his act permitted by the law does not constitute a crime in his own special circumstances, and such misunderstanding does not punish if there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do2943 Decided August 18, 200, etc.). In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) prior to the entry into the road of this case, there is a sign stating that “not less than 4.5 tons of cargo vehicles (including public vehicles) are prohibited from entry into the road of this case; (ii) entry into the exclusive freight lane; and (iii) entry into the road of this case; and (iv) entry into the exclusive freight lane; and (iv) entry lines are clearly distinguishable from the exclusive freight lane; and (iii) the Defendant stated that there was the above fact of the sign at around the time of the instant case (Evidence 31 of the evidence record), the circumstance alleged by the defendant is merely the legal site; and (iv) the Defendant’s mistake.