도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of B truck, and C, the Defendant’s employee, violated the regulations governing vehicles subject to restriction on operation by loading and operating the 10.8 tons on the second axis at the 14:0 on February 13, 1993, at the Jinyang-gun Gyeongyang-gun surface index and the 11.2 tons on the third axis.
2. The prosecutor prosecuted the facts charged by applying Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995). Accordingly, this court issued a summary order of KRW 10,00 to the defendant as of June 30, 1993, and the summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant at that time, but the defendant filed a petition for review of the summary order, which became final and conclusive on the ground that the above legal provision was unconstitutional.
On the other hand, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense pursuant to Article 84 (2) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine pursuant to the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." On the part of the Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24 dated December 29, 201, the above provision of the law has retroactively lost its effect.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.