도로교통법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant had his employee B drive the C Truck on August 13, 1994, and B violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the Road Management Agency by driving the C Truck in the front of the business site at the location of the Gu-ri branch office located 26.8 km away from the old-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-sloping-ri on August 13, 1994.
2. As to the facts charged of this case, the public prosecutor to determine the facts charged of this case (193)
3. Pursuant to Article 86 and subparagraph 1 of Article 84, which was amended by Act No. 4545, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same), a summary order was requested by applying Article 86 and subparagraph 1 of the same Article, and the above summary order was notified and finalized.
In this regard, the Constitutional Court on December 29, 201 shall, where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) of the former Road Act in relation to the business of the corporation, also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.
“The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the part is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24) and thereby, the said provision was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.