The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. On April 10, 2007, around 20:00, at the control station of the traffic on the street moving-line 1004 line traffic restriction (round 2004 line), the Defendant’s employee violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management agency by loading and operating the freight exceeding the size and total weight of the freight vehicle owned by the Defendant with respect to the Defendant’s business.

B. On June 12, 2007, around 20:00, at a vehicle control station for the 14 line-based restriction on the on-road movement of the cartoon No. 14 line in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, for the defendant's business, A, an employee of the defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management agency by loading and operating the freight exceeding the size, total weight, width, and length of the freight vehicle owned by the defendant.

(c)

On July 28, 2007, 11:45 around 11:45, Gyeongnam Kim-si, A, an employee of the defendant, loaded and operated cargo in excess of the limit, width and length of the freight owned by the defendant in relation to the duties of the defendant at the control station of the vehicle on the 14th line of the new Yecheon National Road of Yecheon-ri, the vehicle operation restriction by the road management agency was violated.

(d)

On September 18, 2007, around 02:28, 02:28, A, an employee of the defendant, was loaded and operated in excess of the limit of the cargo vehicles owned by the defendant, and the gross weight of the vehicle owned by the road management agency, at the control station of the 2-line mobile operation restriction (influence) on the road of the 2-line mobile operation restriction (influence) on the road of Masan-do, Masan-do.

E. On October 18, 2007, around 02:29, at the control office of vehicle traffic restrictions (influence) on the 35 line-based road 35 line-based mobile traffic restrictions (influences), A, an employee of the Defendant, loaded freight in excess of the size and total weight of the freight vehicle owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s business, thereby violating the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management office.

2. The judgment prosecutor of this case.