도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the B truck driver, and the defendant is the owner of the above vehicle. A, an employee of the defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by loading and operating the freight of 11.9 tons on the second axis of the above truck at the point 153.2km on January 5, 1996 at the parallel 153.2km of the above truck, which exceeds 10 tons of the restriction on the truck.
2. As to the above facts charged, 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; hereinafter the same), the Seoul District Court issued a summary order of KRW 50,000 to the Defendant on June 3, 1996, and the said summary order became final and conclusive around that time, but the Defendant filed a petition for review of the said summary order on May 31, 2013 on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision.
However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that when an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence 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.With respect to the portion, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "the Constitutional Court's decision (2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 25, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged)") on October 28, 2010, the above provision of the Act retroactively lost its effect.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty on the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act