도로법위반
The defendant is innocent.
1. On June 28, 1993, the summary of the facts charged, C is the driver of the D vehicle belonging to the Defendant, and the vehicle’s 2 axis was operated on the street above the 25.8 km point of the expressway section 10.8 metric tons and 3 11.1 metric tons of the 10.8 metric tons of the vehicle at the right edge of the Gu Ri business office located on the expressway section 25.8 km.
2. The prosecutor brought a public action against the facts charged in the instant case 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 “former Road Act”). However, the part that “where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act due to the decision of the Constitutional Court on Oct. 28, 2010, Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 1014, Oct. 14, 2010; 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, and 70 of the same Act, the portion that “if the corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the same Act, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article” becomes retroactively null and void.
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.