도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of I Trrler, and J, an employee of the Defendant, operated the said Trrler with respect to the Defendant’s duties, following August 1, 200, violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the said truck by exceeding 4.22 meters higher than 4.22 meters higher than the restriction height.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the part that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined under the corresponding Article." The defendant was notified of a summary order subject to reexamination and the above summary order against the defendant was finalized.
However, on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision of the law (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merger) on October 28, 2010), thereby retroactively invalidated the above provision of the law in accordance with 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, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.