도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On January 21, 2003, at around 21:04, the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by loading and operating freight exceeding the total weight of freight vehicle B owned by the Defendant, with respect to the Defendant’s business, at the examination room of the strong operation restriction (i.e., g., g., the g., the g., the g., the g., the g., the g., the g.,
2. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on October 28, 2010 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 Article 83 (1) 2 shall also be imposed on the corporation in violation of the Constitution." Accordingly, 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) applied by the public prosecutor to the facts charged in the case of this case is retroactively invalidated pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, and thus, is not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.