도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A, and the Defendant’s employee operated the vehicle loaded with each of the cargo exceeding 1.5 tons exceeding 4.5 tons, even though he was unable to operate more than 4.3 tons in total at the Daejeon Highway, around 09:0 on October 19, 195, even though he was unable to operate more than 1.5 tons in total at the Daejeon Expressway.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied 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 above facts charged, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 2,00,000 to the defendant as of April 23, 1996, and the above summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant around that time, but the defendant filed a petition for review of the above summary order on the ground that the above provisions were unconstitutional.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." On the part of Article 86 of the above Act, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above provision of the law shall be unconstitutional. In accordance with the decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law shall retroactively lose its effect.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty on the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act