도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
The summary of the facts charged in this case is that A, an employee of the Defendant, operated B vehicle at the front of the index 348km of the South Sea Highway around June 1, 1994, around 17:02, at around the 348km of the project site of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation by a road management authority.
On the other hand, the prosecutor, applying Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993 and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) to the facts charged of this case, was prosecuted, and the summary order of KRW 300,000 was notified and finalized in this court.
However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the same Act in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201). The part of the above legal provision, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts charged, has retroactively lost its effect.
Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is announced under Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.