도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On February 23, 2003, at around 01:56 on February 23, 2003, the Defendant: (a) as the owner of a freight truck; and (b) as the employee of the Defendant, at the control room for vehicles subject to restriction on operation in the Ansan-gu, Seocho-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; and (c) at all times, the Defendant failed to comply with the request of the road management authority to confirm whether the Defendant violated the restriction on operation without justifiable grounds, even though there was a sign stating that “the freight is installed with a watcher for failure to comply with the restriction on operation.”
2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)3 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 facts charged in the instant case.
However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense pursuant to Article 83 (1) 3 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine pursuant to the corresponding Article," the Constitutional Court shall be punished by a fine pursuant to the corresponding Article."
Thus, 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.