도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Around 17:01 on November 10, 1994, the Defendant’s employee, driving the C Vehicle and operated the 11.5 tons of the freight on the 2nd axis of the said vehicle on the road at the 20.4 kilometers of the 17:01 on the 17:01 on November 10, 1994, thereby violating the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of March 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of January 5, 1995) to the above facts charged and the summary order against the defendant was finalized.
After that, the Constitutional Court made a decision that Article 86 of the former Road Act "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under that Article."
(The Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2011Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201). Accordingly, the provisions of the former Road Act, which is applicable provisions to the above charged facts, retroactively lost its effect.
3. According to the conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 32