도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged [2014 Highest 273] The Defendant is a legal entity that is engaged in trucking transport business. Around 11:39 on January 20, 2003, the Defendant, an employee of C, driving a Draos 5 tons truck with respect to the Defendant’s business, thereby violating the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by driving the 4.21m high-speed truck with a total height exceeding 4.21m of 4.21m, at a point where the 26.4m radius starting point of the Seoul outer Expressway Highway (Seoul) is located in the Gu Ri Ri, and the 26
[2014 Highest 277] The Defendant is a juristic person for trucking transport business. Around October 28, 1997, E, an employee of the Defendant, driving a truck of five modern tons with respect to the Defendant’s business, in violation of the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority, by loading a dice dice dice, which is a construction material, on the street of the Seoul Highway Corporation at a point of 20.4km located in the Busan Highway located in the direction of Busan Highway on October 28, 1997.
2. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on October 28, 2010 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 Article 83 (1) 2 shall also be imposed on the corporation in violation of the Constitution." Accordingly, Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) applied by the public prosecutor to the facts charged in the case of this case is retroactively invalidated pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, since each of the above facts charged is not a crime, it is judged not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.