도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On July 4, 2003, the Defendant is the owner of a freight truck A, and around July 16:24, 2003, the Defendant’s employee B, who was the Defendant’s employee, failed to comply with the Defendant’s request for the load measurement without justifiable grounds, as the Defendant did not enter the place of measurement from the control room of restricted vehicles located in Asan-si, a city-si, in the operation of the truck.
2. The prosecutor charged a public action by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)3 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 6841 of Dec. 30, 2002) to the facts charged in the instant case. Article 86 of the same Act provides that “if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation provided for in Article 83(1)3 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation.” The same provision provides that “if an agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits a violation provided for in Article 83(1)3, a fine provided for in the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation.”
Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.