도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the driver of the CF truck belonging to the defendant, and the defendant is a legal entity established for the purpose of district trucking trucking transport business, etc., and B, around November 18, 1999, around 18:26, the defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority by loading the 10 tons of the stable and the 40 tons of vehicles exceeding the gross weight of 40 tons on the 10 tons of the stable in order to preserve the road structure at the control station of the cross-Yyangyangyang-gun on the line of national highways 5 on November 18, 199, in order to prevent the danger of operation. The defendant, who is an employee, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle in the course of carrying the 10 tons of vehicles on the 10 tons of the 1st to 11.10 tons of 10 tons of the 1st axis-gun in the Hayangyang-gun located in the Hayangyang-gun-si.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) 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 above charged facts, and the prosecution was instituted by applying Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act, and the summary order of KRW 500,00 was notified and finalized by this court.
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," in Article 86 of the former Road Act, is in violation of the Constitution (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2010Hun-Ga14, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, the aforementioned provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applied.