The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On December 9, 2016, the Defendant, at around 06:37, had been carrying and operating a cargo on the 3-1 expressway 3-1 expressway, an in-depth cargo vehicle in Ansan-si, the Defendant refused a request for measurement without justifiable grounds even though he was requested by a road management agency for the restriction on the operation of the 1st load measurement result.

2. Determination

A. The “request for the measurement of load capacity” stipulated by Articles 77(4) and 115 subparag. 4 of the Road Act is not only a controlling public official’s demand for the measurement of load, but also a specific and realistic demand for the driver of a specified vehicle to the extent that it would correspond to the demand for direct measurement by a public official in charge, even in a case where a measurement is conducted by a facility installed on the road by the management agency.

If possible, this corresponds to this.

In order to be seen as a specific and realistic demand for measurement of loading quantity to the extent that the direct measurement demand by the public official in charge is given, it should be the premise that the driver of the truck driving along the road can clearly understand that the measurement guidance is made with respect to his/her own vehicle.

The fact that such a request for measurement was made is an important part constituting a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do7212, Jun. 24, 2005; 2009Do7356, Oct. 29, 2009). (b) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone for the following reasons that there was a demand for measurement as prescribed by Article 77(4) of the Road Act (the demand for measurement to confirm the violation of restrictions on operation) against the defendant, or that the defendant did not comply with the demand for measurement even though he knew of the fact.

It is difficult to see otherwise and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) In this case, Article 77(4) of the Road Act is stipulated.