도로법위반
The defendant is innocent.
The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that “the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management authority by allowing his employees to operate the freight vehicle exceeding the limit of 3 and 4 degrees on the front of the YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
With respect to the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying the provision of Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under subparagraph 1 of Article 84 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding provision," and the defendant received a summary order and confirmed the above summary order against the defendant.
However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision (the Constitutional Court Order 201HunGa24 Decided December 29, 201). Accordingly, the above legal provision was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
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.