도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A, and at around 10:50 on November 3, 1994, the Defendant, who is the employee of the Defendant, operated the vehicle with 1.9 tons of more than 1.9 tons and more than 1.5 tons of more than 1.5 tons of more than 1.5 tons of more than 1.5 tons of more than 3 1.9 tons of more than 1.9 tons of more than 1.5 tons of more than 1.5 tons of more than 1.5 tons of more than 1.5 tons of more than 3 1.9 tons of the 19
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 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 above charged facts, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 200,00 to the defendant as of April 1, 1995, and the above summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant, but the defendant filed a request for review of the above summary order on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provisions.
On December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above provision of the law was against the Constitution in Article 86 (1) 24 of the above Act. In accordance with the decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated.
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding not guilty of the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure