도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Around 15:05 on May 2, 2002, the Defendant’s employee B, with respect to the Defendant’s duties, operated the vehicle operation restriction by the road management authority on the street above the 159.7km point of the west Coastal Expressway, at large-scale business office, with a gross weight of 45.34 tons.
2. The prosecutor examined the judgment of the court below, applying Article 86 and Article 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 facts charged in this case. The Constitutional Court ruled in Article 86 that "where an agent, employee or other employee of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the corporation's business, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation," which is a violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38 of Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, according to the above decision of unconstitutionality, the legal provision of the above facts charged, which is a applicable provision of the Act, retroactively loses its effect.
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.