도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. A summary of the facts charged is a corporation for the purpose of trucking transport business, etc., and around 19:54 on August 30, 2001, the Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority by loading freight at the 10t of 11.65t and 3 stables of 11.4t of 19.6ms of 19.8ms of the 19.8ms of the 19.8ms of the west coast Highway along with the 19.8m of the west Highway.
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 facts charged and prosecuted the defendant, and the summary order subject to retrial was issued and confirmed.
However, on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other employee 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 be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution, Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to the instant case by ruling of 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged) and applied to the instant case, the above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47
Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime, and thus, is not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.