4.5 tons or more of cargo vehicles call a lawsuit for the entry fee of a national highway, they are blicking light lights and labels (not less than 100 d) at the time of violations of restrictions on operation in accordance with article 77, paragraph 1, of the Road Act, and notify the violation at the electronic display board displayed of the restricted vehicles.

On April 20, 2016, the Defendant, while carrying freight on the above vehicle and operating it on July 31, 2016, failed to comply with the demand of the road management agency for re-measurement of the load load without justifiable grounds, even though the Defendant was notified of the result of the first autopsy in violation of the restriction on the operation at the time of entering the business office in the direction of the direction of the lux circulation line outside Seoul.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the crime of refusing to measure the loading quantity under Article 77(4) and Article 115 subparag. 4 of the Road Act, a specific and realistic request should be made to the driver of a specific vehicle, and it should be based on the premise that, for the purpose of recognizing the specific and realistic request for measuring the loading quantity, the driver of the vehicle passing through the road can clearly know that the measurement guidance is made with respect to one's own vehicle. The fact that such a request for measurement was made is an important part of the criminal facts and requires strict proof to acknowledge it (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7212, Jun. 24, 2005). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the defendant, as stated in the facts charged, violated the restriction on operation under Article 7(1)7 of the Road Act at the time of demanding the measurement of the loading volume on the expressway, even if the defendant violated the restriction on operation under Article 7(7) of the Road Act.