도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. At around 03:09 on February 8, 1994, C, an employee of the Defendant, operated a DNA vehicle owned by the Defendant with a gross weight of 10 tons and 40 tons in excess of 10 tons and gross weight of 2,3, and 40 tons in front of the Daejeon Daejeon Highway, and thus violated the restriction on the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle in the road management office in relation to the Defendant’s duties by operating a DNA vehicle with a gross weight of 10.1 tons in tons, 10.2 tons in the 5 livestock, and 47.4 tons in the 5 livestock.
2. As to the facts charged of this case, the prosecutor charged a public prosecution 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). As to this, the summary order of KRW 300,000 was notified and confirmed by the above court.
In this regard, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 86 of the above Act provides that "where an employee or other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the pertinent Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which violates the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201). Accordingly, the applicable provisions of the facts charged of this case concerning the offense committed by the employer have retroactively lost its effect.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, 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 Act.