도로법위반
The defendants are all innocent.
1. Violation of the restriction on the temporary operation of cargo drivers belonging to the summary order subject to review and the summary of the facts charged of the summary order subject to review of the summary order subject to review of the case number (the Military Branch of the Jeonju District Court) and the summary of the facts charged of the summary order subject to review of the case number (the Military Branch of the Jeonju District Court) where the cargo drivers belong to the summary of the facts charged, shall be subject to the restriction on the temporary operation of the location of the cargo drivers, 1207 order 3127 order 126 AB on March 27, 2007, No. 1236 AB on August 25, 2006, 15:40 on August 25, 2006, 201 order No. 711 of the No. 2012 order No. 31284, Aug. 9, 2007;
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; and accordingly, each of the summary orders against the defendant was finalized.
After all, the Constitutional Court made a decision on the constitutionality of the above provision of the law (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17, July 30, 2009). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
3. If so, each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a crime, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the decision of not guilty on the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.