도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. A, who is an employee of the defendant, violated the restriction on operation to preserve the structure of the road and prevent traffic by operating the freight exceeding 5.4 tons at the Incheon Highway Corporation's Incheon Highway on February 15, 1994, at around 14:30, in relation to the defendant's business, the defendant's employee as to the defendant's business.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter “former Road Act”) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the summary order subject to reexamination was notified to the defendant and finalized.
However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article." [The Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ga24 dated 29, 201] of Article 86 of the former Road Act, the part of the above legal provision, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts charged, has retroactively lost its effect.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment in this case is publicly announced pursuant to Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 58(2)