도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On July 7, 1993, around 00:21 on July 7, 1993, the Defendant is the owner of a freight vehicle A, and the Defendant’s employee B violated the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by operating the said vehicle with a load of more than 11.5 tons on a 2 livestock shed in excess of 10 tons in front of the Seoul Highway Corporation’s business office and the 11.5 tons in load
2. The prosecutor charged the above charged facts by applying Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995), and the court issued a summary order of KRW 300,00 to the defendant on Oct. 18, 1993, and the above summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant at that time, but the defendant filed a request for review of the above summary order on the ground that the above provision of the Act was unconstitutional.
On the other hand, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the 201Hun-Ga24 dated December 29, 201 should be in violation of the Constitution. In accordance with the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law has retroactively lost 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.