The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. The primary accused of the facts charged is a C freight driver, who violated the road management agency’s restriction on loadage.

Where it is determined, a re-measurement may be requested, and in such cases, the driver of the vehicle shall comply with such request, except in extenuating circumstances.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on May 25, 2016, driven the above vehicle at around 15:11, driving the vehicle and, at the time of the Chungcheongbuk-do, was in excess of the regulatory speed (hereinafter 10km in Si) in the modern era established in the Sincheon-si Highway, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the Chungcheongnam-do, the Chungcheongnam-do, the Chungcheongnam-do, and the IC, at the same time, controlled the meaning of requiring re-measurement. In such cases, the Defendant, as a truck driver, did not stop the vehicle and failed to comply with the demand of the road management agency staff to re-measurement the vehicle without any justifiable reason.

B. In order to verify whether a vehicle driver has violated the restriction on operation, the road management agency, as the accused of the ancillary charge, may have the relevant public official or the control officer of the restriction on operation measure the vehicle's load by requiring the driver of the vehicle to take a vehicle or submit the relevant documents.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around 15:11 on May 25, 2016, was requested by the Control Board to measure the load of the said cargo in the IC on the Gyeongcheon-si Highway, Young-gu, Young-ri, Young-ri, Gyeongcheon-do, Gyeong-do, in order to maintain the order of the Road Management Agency to measure the load of the said cargo without justifiable grounds, while driving the said cargo at the ICIC, the Defendant immediately stops the vehicle and proceeds without measuring the load of the vehicle.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment violated Article 115 subparag. 6 and Article 78 subparag. 2 of the Road Act and Article 115 subparag. 4 and Article 77 of the Road Act around the defendant's act as stated in the above facts charged, and the defendant's conjunctive act violates Article 115 subparag. 4 and Article 77 of the Act.