도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On August 21, 1996, at around 16:00 on August 21, 1996, an employee A of the Defendant violated the restrictions on the operation of vehicles of the Road Management Agency by loading freight of 11.1 ton on the 2 axis of the vehicle and operating it on the road in front of the business office located in the south-do road located in the Republic of Korea located in the 447-3 branch of the Association, with a view to violating the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the Road Management Agency.
2. As to the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor is the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter “former Road Act”).
Article 86 and Article 83 (1) 2 apply to the indictment, and the summary order subject to review was notified to the defendant and finally confirmed.
If an agent, employee or other worker of a juristic person commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the juristic person, the juristic person shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.
“The Constitutional Court 2010 Constitutional Court 14,15,21,27,35,38,44,70 (Joint) rendered a decision that the part of “ ” is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court 2010 Constitutional Court 14,15,21,27,35,38,44,70). According to the said decision, the part of the above legal provision, which is the legal provision applicable to
Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant shall be acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.