도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On October 6, 1997, at around 23:18, 1997, the Defendant’s employee A, with respect to the Defendant’s business, violated the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by operating the freight truck owned by the Defendant and operating the Defendant’s B truck in excess of 1.1 ton at the 3rd-dop expressway business office at the 4th-dop expressway.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86 and 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 defendant was notified of the summary order subject to review and confirmed.
However, after the summary order subject to review became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the corporation's business on October 28, 2010 (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005)" in Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, the portion that "a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation is imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 444, and 70 (Joint) of the Constitutional Court Act).
Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.