도로법위반
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is the driver of D D dump truck on August 17, 1993, and it is anticipated that it might be found that it was excessive to the above dump truck in front of the road management office, which is located in the 507 line of the Dopp truck located in Dopp truck located in Taesung-ri, the local highway 507 line, and that it would be discovered that it was excessive to the above dump truck. On September 14, 1993, at around 10:40 on September 14, 1993, it is anticipated that it would be discovered that it was excessive to the dump truck above dump truck in front of the traffic safety inspection station, and the defendant's dump truck's order was refused to comply with the direction order of road management.
2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the above facts charged by applying Articles 86, 84 subparagraph 2, and 54 (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; hereinafter the same) to the above facts charged.
In this regard, the Constitutional Court on October 25, 2012, when an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (2) of the former Road Act in relation to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article.
Article 47(2) proviso of the Constitutional Court Act provides that “The Constitutional Court 2012 Constitutional Court 18 Constitutional Court 2012 Constitutional Court 18 Constitutional Court 201 Constitutional Court 201 Constitutional Court 201 Constitutional Court 2.
3. According to the conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment is to be publicly announced pursuant to the main sentence of Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and this judgment