도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On August 30, 2005, around 09:55 on August 30, 2005, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, operated a B truck loaded with B trucking freight of 11.4 tons of the actual measurement value at the 5 livestock shed in excess of 10 tons at the 10th place of business in the direction of the Seoul metropolitan direction, thereby violating the restriction on vehicle operation by the road management authority.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment is amended by Act No. 4920 of January 5, 1995 as to the above charged facts and 200
5. A public prosecution was instituted by applying Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832, Oct. 30, 2012). However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “where an agent, employee, or other servant 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” in Article 86 of the Road Act (Article 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 444, and 70 of the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, Oct. 28, 2010) was retroactively invalidated.
3. If so, the above facts charged constitute a crime and thus, a judgment of not guilty is rendered in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.