도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. At around 10:06 on September 8, 1994, the Defendant violated the instant charges on vehicle operation restrictions by operating the Defendant’s employees at a point of 36.5 km in front of the business establishment of the Gyeonggi-do Gyeonggi Highway Corporation, Gyeonggi-do, Korea Highway Corporation, at a point of 36.5 km, in relation to the Defendant’s business, the Defendant’s employees violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management agency by operating the Defendant’s employees at the second axis more than 10t of the limitation on the load weight of CF
2. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on the portion of Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 7832, Oct. 28, 2010; Act No. 8315, Oct. 28, 2010; Act No. 8665, Oct. 28, 2010; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 2095; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 4777, Jan. 2, 2005; Act No. 83155, Oct. 2, 200) that “if an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2,
3. Accordingly, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure