도로법위반
Defendant’s innocence;
1. On May 15, 2004, around 15:36 on May 15, 2004, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority, by operating a flexible car in excess of 11.5t of freight from YYYYYYY 258 km at YYYYY 258 km.
2. As to the facts charged in this case, a public prosecutor has instituted a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 and Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005). The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," in Article 86 of the same Act, that "if the agent, employee or other worker of the corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the same Act, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation, which is in violation of the Constitution (Article 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged)."
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.