도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. At around 10:36 on June 1, 2004, I, an employee of the defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management authority in relation to the defendant's duties by operating a J-vehicle with the load of 4 11.39 tons, 5 1.17 tons, gross weight of 40 tons in excess of 10 tons, gross weight of 40 tons on the road in front of the S-rigin Sgin Sgin Sgin National Road 36 of the T-riin Sgin Sgin Sgin Sgin Sgin-si located in Asan City.
2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), and the above court notified the summary order of KRW 300,000, which became final and conclusive.
However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the pertinent Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," in Article 86 of the above Act, violates the Constitution (Supreme Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged). Accordingly, the applicable provisions of the facts charged in this case, the applicable provisions of which contain an employee's offense, retroactively lose its effect.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.