도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Around May 29, 197, when the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, operated a B truck with respect to the Defendant’s business, the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation by operating the 14.35 tons of a total weight exceeding 2.6 tons of 12.6 tons of 2 axis, 3 stables of 16.0 tons, 6.0 tons of 16 tons of 3 stables of 16.0 tons of 15.75 tons of 14.35 tons of 14.35 tons of 4.75 tons of 197, in order to preserve the road’s structure and prevent traffic.
2. As to Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; “Article 83(2)” stated in the summary order, “Article 83(1)2” in Article 86 of the former Road Act is obvious that the agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 in relation to the corporation’s business, the Constitutional Court shall, in cases where the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act, impose a fine under the relevant Article on the corporation,” the portion of which is against the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 27, 35, 384, 470).
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.