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

The defendant is a person who carries on transportation by driving a freight transit box B.

In order to confirm whether or not a restriction on operation has been violated, a road management agency may have a relevant public official or a control officer of restriction on operation measure the load of a vehicle by means of getting on the vehicle or demanding the driver of the vehicle to submit related documents, etc.

In such cases, the driver of a vehicle shall comply with such request except in extenuating circumstances.

On October 17, 2016, the Defendant loaded smoke coal to the above cargo vehicle on October 18:53, 2016, and failed to comply with the demand of a personnel’s signals leading to the entry of an excessive inspector in front of the national highway 21 national highway station prior to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, located in the Rool-ri, Rool-si, in the case of the military industry, while the vessel was operated from the front section of the land to the Doctrine bank in front of the Doctrine.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on detection;

1. Application of statutes governing a certificate of measurement;

1. Article 115 of the Act and Articles 115 subparagraph 4 and 77 (4) of the Act, the selection of a fine concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment are as follows: (a) the Defendant recognized the criminal facts of this case; (b) the time of this case was kept at night; and (c) the place of this case was a road of six-lanes, and the passage of not only the Defendant’s truck, but also other vehicles; and (d) there are some differences in consideration of the fact that the Defendant was unable to grasp the number of employees who controlled the Defendant due to considerable progress speed; (b) the Defendant was punished several times for the same crime; and (c) the control place of this case was erroneous that the Defendant was punished several times for the same crime; and (d) on the other hand, the control place of this case was found to have failed to confirm it through the wind, even if there was the number of employees present before the time of the check and control.