Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Criminal facts

On June 30, 2008, around 15:57, the defendant's employee B violated the restrictions on the operation of vehicles by loading more than 1.16 tons of industrial area 11.16 tons, and operating more than 1.16 tons of cattle at around 362.7km in Busan, a barge at a point of 362.7 km in Busan, in connection with the defendant's work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal provisions applicable to summary orders in violation of the law of Daegu District Court Decision 2008 High Court Decision 5665 High Court Decision 2008 High Court Decision

1. The retrial of this case was decided on the ground that Article 100(1), Article 98(1)2, and Article 59(1) of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; Act No. 10156, Mar. 22, 2010); Article 100(1), Article 98(1)2, and Article 59(1) of the former Road Act; Article 208 of the former Special Act on the Punishment of Fines and Punishment of Sentence 5665, the Daegu District Court 208 High Court 7, the Supreme Court 2008 High High Court 5665, which applied the summary order with respect to the violation of the Act, became unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.

However, there is no fact that the Constitutional Court made a decision of unconstitutionality with respect to the provisions of the law applied in the summary order subject to reexamination.

However, the effect of the final and conclusive decision of commencing a new trial cannot be contested any more, and even if the decision of commencing a new trial is unfair, if the decision of commencing a new trial becomes final and conclusive even if it is so unfair, the court shall re-examine the defendant according to the instance, unless it is the case of Article 436 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2154, Sept. 24, 2004, etc.). Therefore, the court shall again pronounce a conviction against the defendant, and the penalty of fine