도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. At around 03:20 on Aug. 8, 1997, A, an employee of the Defendant, was in violation of the Defendant’s vehicle operation restriction by the road management authority by loading and operating B freight at the Seoul Business Office located at the point of 20.4km a line of 20.4km a line of 11.6 km a line of 10 metric tons, in excess of 10 tons a line of 10.6 km.
2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the above charged facts 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) to the above charged facts.
However, on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined in accordance with the Constitution" in Article 86 of the former Road Act, "if the agent, employee or other worker of the corporation commits an act of violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined in accordance with the Constitution," and pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act, the above part of Article 86 of the former Road Act retroactively lost its effect.
3. In conclusion, 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.