도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On December 13, 1998, at around 17:35, 1998, C, an employee of the Defendant, violated the Defendant’s duty restrictions on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating a DNA freight vehicle in the status of 11.1 ton of the 3 livestock, exceeding 10 ton of the restricted cattle on the front side of the 3 livestock highway.
2. The prosecutor charged the facts charged in the instant case 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 “former Road Act”), but the Constitutional Court ruled that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act in accordance with the decision of Oct. 28, 2010, Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 1014, Oct. 14, 2010; 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, and 70 of the former Road Act, the portion of the relevant fine under Article 86 of the former Road Act shall also be imposed on the corporation."
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.