도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A, and around June 2, 1993, around 07:19 on June 2, 1993, the Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, violated the Korea Highway Corporation’s duty by operating the freight of more than 1.4 tons exceeding 1.4 tons at the 2 axis, even though he could not operate more than 10 tons of the cattle at the Seo-gu Daejeon Business Office.
2. The prosecutor charged the above charged facts by applying Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995), and this court issued a summary order of KRW 300,00 to the defendant as of September 16, 1993. The above summary order was finalized after the notice to the defendant was notified, but the defendant requested a retrial of the above summary order on the ground that the above provision was unconstitutional.
On the other hand, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the 201Hun-Ga24 dated December 29, 201 should be in violation of the Constitution. In accordance with the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law has 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