도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. On November 3, 2004, around 01:52 on November 3, 2004, the summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, loaded and operated the freight of more than 11.3t, exceeding 10t out of 10t on the third axis of the B truck at a gold farm located in the direction of the main highway, thereby violating the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation.
2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the above charged facts by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 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 the above charged facts.
However, in Article 86 of the above Act, the phrase "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense pursuant to Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine pursuant to the corresponding Article." The Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga38 Decided October 28, 2010, retroactively lost its effect.
3. According to the conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment in this case is publicly announced pursuant to Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 5