도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Violation of the restriction on the temporary operation of cargo drivers belonging to the summary order subject to the summary order subject to the review and the summary of the facts charged by the summary order subject to the review of the case number (the Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court) and a violation of the restriction on the operation of the location of cargo drivers belonging to the summary of the facts charged by the summary order subject to the review of the case number (the Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court) and the violation of the restriction on the operation of the location of cargo drivers at the same time, 1200 order 3126 order 120, 3126 AB 9
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) to the facts charged in the instant case, and accordingly, the summary order against the defendant was finalized.
After all, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision on the constitutionality of the above provision of the law (the Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
3. If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.