도로법위반
The accused shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of A1 ton truck, and the Defendant’s employee B loaded the stone for construction on the above vehicle at a stone plant located in the south-gun of Gyeonggi-do on November 29, 1993 and operated it to the construction site located in the principle of law of the Pakistan-gun of Gyeonggi-do on the same day at around 20:48 of the same day, around 20:5 tons of Seoul, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Seoul, Suwon-si, Seoul, 11.9 tons of the business office and 11.9 tons of the 3 dunes and loaded the 11.5 tons of the 3 dunes, 1.5 tons of each 3 dunes, and 40 kilometers of each 1.9 tons of each 1.9 tons of each dunes-gun.
2. As to the facts charged of this case, the public prosecutor charged a public action by applying Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995), and the summary order of KRW 200,00 was notified and finalized in this court.
After the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court of Korea on December 29, 201, when an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under the provisions of Article 84 (1) with respect to the business of the corporation in Article 86 of the above Act, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding provisions.
“The Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the part above (201Hun-Ga Decision 24) and thereby, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the main sentence of 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.