도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On February 12, 1996, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the Road Management Agency by carrying 1.1 ton, 11.4 ton, and 11.4 ton of steel plates on the third axis of the B vehicle, before the end of the same bomb, which took place around 10:30 on February 12, 1996.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment shall also impose a fine in accordance with Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) with respect to the above facts charged in cases where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in relation to the business of the corporation.
A public prosecution was instituted by applying the part "," and the summary order subject to review to which the above provision of the law was applied was finalized as it is.
In this regard, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on October 28, 2010 as to the above provision of the law (Supreme Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (Joint) Decided October 28, 2010). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.