도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the driver of the B 11 ton cargo vehicle to which the defendant belongs, and on March 7, 1994, the YYYYYYYYYYYYYY, the area where the operation of the vehicle was restricted at around 11:16 on March 7, 1994, and the YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY C, who ordered the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the vehicle in front of the patrol station.
The Defendant, an employee, committed the above-mentioned violation in relation to his duties.
2. The part of Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995), which applies to the facts charged of this case, that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the Act in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is applicable to the facts charged of this case. The part that "a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is retroactively invalidated by the Constitutional Court’s decision that 2011Hun-Ga was 24, which was unconstitutional by the full bench.
3. As the facts charged in the instant case constitute a crime, the Defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it falls under the case not committed.