도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The Defendant, a corporation established for the purpose of trucking transport business, etc. on October 8, 199, and around 15:55, on the road on the 7th line of Taedong-dong National Road No. 7 of Jungdong-dong-si, Chungcheongnam, an employee of the Defendant, violated the Defendant’s duties by loading and operating concrete of 1.80 tons, 11.90 tons, 5 tons, 11.90 tons, 41.20 tons, and gross weight of 41.20 tons on the 4st axis of D truck.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the defendant's summary order as to the facts charged in this case, and the summary order was issued and confirmed as they are.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 shall also be imposed on the corporation in accordance with the Constitution" in Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to the defendant by a ruling of the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merger). Accordingly, the part of the above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2)
On the other hand, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively effective due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision shall be deemed to constitute a crime.
(2) Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The charges of this case against the defendant shall not be charged as a crime” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9037, Apr. 15, 2005).