도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant's employee A refused to comply with the direction demand of the road management agency in relation to the defendant's duties at the direction of the main body of the check-up station located in ri, the area of the mountain area in the Yan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Yan-gun, the Yan-gun, the Yan-gun, the Yan-gun, the
In this regard, if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 84 (2) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995), which is a legal provision applicable to the facts charged of this case, under Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Jan. 5, 1995), the corporation shall also be fined under the corresponding Article.
“The part “” was retroactively invalidated by the Constitutional Court Decision 2012Hun-Ga18 Constitutional Court Decision on October 25, 2012 and 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.