도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the owner of C Driving D Freight and C’s user. C around December 1, 2006, around 3:38, at a non-fwing station in the direction of Seoul, the coastline 312.8 km from the coastline 3:00 tons of freight exceeding 11.03 tons of the 11.03 tons of the 103 tons of the 11.03 tons of the 103 tons of the 103 tons of the 103 tons of the 100 tons of the 1000 tons of the 10
2. The prosecutor charged the facts charged in this case by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008) to the provisions of Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the same Act. The Constitutional Court, in Article 86 of the same Act, "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation," which is the decision of unconstitutionality that it is against the Constitution (amended by Act No. 2008Hun-Ga17 of Jul. 30, 2009). Accordingly, the provision of the same Act, which is the applicable provisions of the above facts charged, retroactively lost its effect.
In addition, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provision shall be deemed to be a crime.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9037 Decided April 15, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992). Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime and thus, is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.