도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. On September 1, 2006, A, an employee of the Defendant, violated the restrictions on the operation of vehicles of the Road Management Agency by operating the said vehicle in excess of the size limit and total weight of B vehicle in front of the mobile excessive inspection station located in the north north of the west of Yangsan-si on September 1, 2006.
2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; and issued a summary order by recognizing this guilty by the court.
In this regard, after the summary order subject to review becomes final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court shall, in case where an agent, employee or other worker of a juristic person commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the juristic person, be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.
“The part” was decided to be in violation of the Constitution (Hun-Ga 17, July 30, 2009, Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ga 17, 2009). Accordingly, the above legal provision, which is a penal provision for the facts charged in this case, was retroactively invalidated.
Thus, since the facts charged in this case against the defendant constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it shall be pronounced not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by publicly announcing the summary of the judgment of the defendant under the main sentence of Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure