Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a driver of a truck with a 28 ton special flapt X-how.

When the driver of a truck with a maximum load capacity of at least 4.5t passes through a lawsuit for access fees to a national highway, he/she shall pass along the lane where load measuring equipment is installed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on November 16, 2016, driven the above truck and passed through the business office of the Incheon Highway, the Defendant obstructed the measurement of the load load of the above truck by passing through the ordinary lower-class lane where the loading quantity measurement equipment is not installed, while driving the above truck at around 16:58.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes in filing an accusation by the president of the Korea Road Corporation;

1. Article 115 of the Act and Articles 115 subparagraph 5 and 78 (3) of the Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order

1. The Defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion is a single criminal offense and a single criminal offense committed against the Defendant, where he/she did not carry his/her goods into the cargo vehicle from October 15, 2015 to December 20, 2016, but continues to proceed as the ordinary cargo lane, if he/she did not carry his/her goods into the cargo vehicle.

However, on May 20, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 50,000,000 issued on January 16, 2017 by the Incheon District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 29867, which issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 on January 27, 2017, and thus, the instant facts charged constitute cases where the res judicata effect of the said summary order exists.

Therefore, a judgment of acquittal should be rendered against the defendant.

2. Determination: The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court; namely, the Defendant’s crime of May 20, 201 upon receipt of a summary order, and the Defendant’s crime of November 16, 2016, which is the charge of the instant facts charged.