도로법위반
The defendants are all innocent.
1. Violation of the restriction on 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 of the summary order subject to the review of the case number (the Gunsan Support of the Jeonju District Court) at the location of cargo drivers belonging to the summary of the charges of the summary order subject to the review (the Gunsan Support of the Jeonju District Court) and violation of the restriction on the operation of the location of cargo drivers at the same time and place on May 9, 1998 DD 1728 on June 25, 1997, 2012 order 3130 order 3130 on January 22, 1998, 2012 order 97Da8647 C E on September 17, 1997: 18 Korea Highway Corporation prior to the place of each transmitting business.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied 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) to each of the facts charged of this 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 Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged) on October 28, 2010). 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, each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a crime, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the decision of not guilty on the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.