도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On April 18, 1994, around 18:38, the Defendant’s employee, who is an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority, by operating the freight of 11.4 tons on the 2 axis of the above cargo vehicle in the front side of the stop-ju business office, which is a point of 119km from the 119km parallel along the Honam Highway.
2. The prosecutor charged the above charged facts by applying Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 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 indictment.
However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act in violation of Article 84 (1) of the former Road Act with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined in accordance with the Constitution" in Article 86 of the former Road Act, and the above part of Article 86 of the former Road Act shall retroactively lose its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.