도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
The summary of the facts charged in this case is that A, an employee of the defendant, violated the restriction on vehicle operation by the road management authority in the course of operating a vehicle B in front of the control of the door-to-door (defluence) vehicle in the front of the front of the door-to-door (defluence 3 lines) on September 4, 2005, when he/she operates a vehicle in front of the door-to-door (de
Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged, has lost its effect due to the decision of unconstitutionality as of Oct. 28, 2010 2010Hun-Ga14, 15 (Joint), 21 (Joint), 27 (Joint), 35 (Joint), 38 (Joint), 44 (Joint), and 70 (Joint), which is the applicable provisions of the above facts charged.
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The Institute of Jind Co., Ltd.