도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant, a juristic person established for the purpose of trucking transport business, etc., violated the vehicle operation restriction regulations of the road management authority with respect to the Defendant’s business by loading and operating the freight exceeding 10 ton of 11.1 ton of the 4th to the 10 ton of the limited axis at the inspection station of the light-speed highway, which is the employee B around August 15:28, 1995.
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 facts charged in the instant case. However, the Constitutional Court ruled in Article 86 of the former Road Act that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2 with respect to the corporation's business, the portion that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provision shall also be punished by the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38 of Oct. 28, 2010, etc.). Thus, the aforementioned provision of the Act retroactively
Thus, the facts charged in this case 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.