도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
On May 13, 2005, the Defendant was a person who is engaged in transportation business as the owner of a truck, and was in violation of the restriction on the operation of a vehicle by a road management authority by loading freight of 11.4 tons on the 5 axis and loading and operating the restricted weight of 10 tons over 1.4 tons of a 10 tons of a 10 tons of a 11.4 tons of a 10 tons of a 5 axis while operating the above truck with respect to the Defendant’s business. < Amended by Act No. 754, May 13, 2005>
Judgment
With respect to the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and confirmed.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined)). Accordingly, the above Article 86 of the former Road Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act