도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the B truck driver, and the defendant is the owner of the above vehicle. A, who is the employee of the defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by loading and operating the freight of 11.7 tons exceeding 10 tons of the 10 tons of the 19-7 tons of the storage of the above truck at the location of the Young-dong Highway 26.5km (Ghill direction) around September 18, 202.
2. As to the above facts charged, a summary order of KRW 70,00 was issued to the defendant on February 7, 2003 by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 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) as to the above facts charged. The above summary order was finalized around that time, but the defendant filed a petition for review of the above summary order on October 19, 2012 on the ground that the above provisions of the Act became unconstitutional.
However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that when an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.With respect to the portion, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "the Constitutional Court's decision (2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 25, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged)") on October 28, 2010, the above provision of the Act 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.