Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

No motor vehicle maintenance business operator shall have his/her motor vehicle tubes except in cases of obtaining approval from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu.

From 2016 to 2016, the Defendant, as a motor vehicle maintenance business operator operating a “C” factory in Go Chang-gun B, and around September 2016, as a different loading of D 4.5 tons of trucks, which did not have been approved for its mooring at the above factory, and replaced the body length by 222m of the vehicle, 217m of the length of the loading box, and 50m of the height of the loading box increased by 50m.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 80 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act and Articles 80 and 57 (2) of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. In full view of the fact that an employee of an industrial company operated by the defendant for the determination of the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel in the main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not increase the length, etc. of loading in compliance with the defendant's instruction, and that the automobile inspection conducted before selling the cargo to the complainant did not have any problem, the defendant's repair of the cargo vehicle, such as replacing the cargo to replace the cargo vehicle, is beyond the permissible level, and the defendant's error in size goes beyond the scope of loading in some cases, and does not increase or decrease the length of loading in part, and thus, the defendant did not have any error in the scope of loading.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant changed the size of the loading box of the vehicle stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).