도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant had his employee B drive the C Truck on January 25, 1994, and the Defendant violated the restrictions on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority on the operation of the vehicle at the 10.8t and 11.2t of the C truck from the 1008-ray Woo-gun, the 1008-ray Woo-gun, the 1008-ray Woo-gun, the 10.8t, and the 11.2t of the C truck.
2. The prosecutor applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to a summary order concerning the facts charged in the instant case, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and confirmed.
On December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision (the Constitutional Court Order 2011HunGa24, Constitutional Court Order) that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under Article 84." This provision is retroactively null and void pursuant to 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, a judgment of not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure