도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Summary of the facts charged in this case
A. On March 12, 2004, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by failing to comply with the request of the road management agency for the measurement, even though A, an employee of the Defendant, was operating a freight vehicle owned by the Defendant in the front of the inspection station of the restriction on the operation of the deep-sea in Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, Seoul, for the Defendant’s business, while driving the freight vehicle owned by the Defendant.
B. On March 25, 2004, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by failing to comply with the request of the road management agency for the measurement, even though A, an employee of the Defendant, was operating a freight vehicle owned by the Defendant in front of the inspection station of the restriction on the operation of the deep-sea in Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, U.S., U.S. on the road in front of the control of the vehicles for the restriction on the operation of the sea water
(c)
On March 26, 2004, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by failing to comply with the request of the road management agency for the measurement of the load load while the Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, was operating the freight vehicles owned by the Defendant in front of the inspection station of the restriction on the operation of Gyeyang-gu, Ulsan-si, U.S. on the road in front of the control of the vehicles under the restriction on the operation of the deep-sea.
(d)
On March 27, 2004, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by failing to comply with the request of the road management agency for the measurement of the load load while the Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, was operating the freight vehicles owned by the Defendant in front of the inspection station of the restriction on the operation of Gyeyang-gu, Ulsan-si, U.S. on the road in front of the control of the vehicles under the restriction on the operation of the deep-sea.
2. As to the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor's judgment is stipulated in Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) with respect to "the agent, employee or other worker of a corporation" as to the business of the corporation.