도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant is the owner of a truck A, and the Defendant violated the restriction on operation by loading the cargo of 11.1 ton and 11.7 ton of the 4 livestock, and operating the said vehicle in excess of 10 ton of 3 ton of the 11.7 ton of the 11.7 ton of the 3 livestock, at the 4 livestock 1.7 ton of the 11.7 tons at the 4 livestock, 194, around 13:40 on October 27, 1994.
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 February 27, 1995, and the above summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant, but the defendant requested re-adjudication of the above summary order on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision of the law.
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 against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.