도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On June 23, 1997, H, an employee of the Defendant, was the driver of the IF and violated the road management authority’s restriction on the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle by loading and operating the 11.2 tons of the Defendant’s work on the 4 axis of the said vehicle in excess of 10 tons at the front of the 11km-dong-dong-dong-On the 15:36 Guro-Insan Highway direction.
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) to the above facts charged and the summary order against the defendant became final and conclusive.
After that, the Constitutional Court made a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding provision of Article 86 of the former Road Act."
[Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged) decided October 28, 2010] Accordingly, the provisions of the former Road Act, which are applicable provisions to the above facts charged, retroactively lost its effect.
3. According to the conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 32