도로법위반
The defendant is innocent.
1. On November 26, 1993, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: B, an employee of the Defendant, operated a 5 ton of an excessive vehicle in front of the road in front of the vehicle movement inspection station located within the boundary of the Nam-gun, Nam-gun, Nanju-gun on November 12:10, 1993 with respect to the Defendant’s work; B violated the restriction on the operation of an excessive vehicle in the road management agency by driving a 15 ton of a lep truck with an Amp truck in excess of 1.67 ton.
2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying 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 “former Road Act”).
In this regard, the Constitutional Court on November 29, 201 shall, when an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) of the former Road Act in relation to the business of the corporation, also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.
“The Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ga317 Decided November 29, 201 (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga24, Nov. 29, 201). In a case where the legal provision on punishment becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality (see, e.g., Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act). In a case where the legal provision on punishment becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the Defendant case indicted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2825, May 8, 1992; 2005Do8317, Jun. 28, 2007). Ultimately, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where it does not constitute a crime.
Therefore, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.