도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
The summary of the facts charged as follows: (a) The driver of CM truck is the Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of the land trucking transport business, etc.; (b) on March 3, 200, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority by restricting the operation of vehicles exceeding 4.0 meters in height, 2.5 meters in width, 19.0 meters in length in order to preserve the structure of the road and prevent the danger of operation in the traffic on the line of the Seoul National Road on March 3, 200. (c) On the line of the Seoul National Road on March 3, 11:15, 200, while the operation of the vehicle exceeds 4.0 meters in height, 2.5 meters in height, and 19.0 meters in length, while the vehicle control team of the vehicle in violation of the restriction on operation was loaded on the above car truck as a road construction site located in Ansan-si at the same time. (d) The Defendant
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the above charged facts, and the prosecution was instituted by applying Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act, and the summary order of KRW 300,00 was notified and finalized by this court.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," in Article 86 of the former Road Act, is in violation of the Constitution (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2010Hun-Ga14, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, the aforementioned provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act