도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. On December 11, 2003, around 32, 2003, A, an employee of the Defendant in the facts charged of the instant case, loaded and operated a scrap metal of more than 11.1 ton and more than 45.1 ton of 45.1 ton of 10 ton of 3 livestock, in excess of 10 ton of 10 ton of 11.1 ton of 45.1 ton of 40 ton of 45.1 ton of the 325 ton of the coast Highway 316.9km
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case. The Constitutional Court held that "where an agent, employee or other employee of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act with respect to the corporation's business, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under Article 83(1)2" in Article 86 of the former Road Act shall be punished by the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38 (Joint) of Oct. 28, 2010). Thus, the above provision of the Road Act retroactively lost its effect.
Thus, the facts charged of 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 the judgment against the defendant is publicly announced pursuant to Article