도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant is the owner of C vehicle. Around September 27, 2003, the Defendant, who is the Defendant’s employee, operated the vehicle as loaded with freight exceeding 1.1 ton of the total weight of 1.1 ton in the above vehicle at a premium-type business office located at a point of 269.7km 269.36km on September 27, 2003.
2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the above charged facts by applying 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 charged facts.
However, with respect to Article 86 of the above Act, "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, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article," the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the Article 2010Hun-Ga38 dated October 28, 2010 should be in violation of the Constitution. In accordance with the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law has retroactively lost its effect.
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.