도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On September 3, 2002, at around 17:14 on September 3, 2002, the Defendant’s summary of the facts charged, as the owner of a freight truck, B, an employee of the Defendant, was in violation of the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the freight loaded with a total of 4.98 tons of freight on the fourth axis of the truck in excess of 1.83 tons of the restricted stable weight, 11.83 tons of the restricted weight, 1.35 tons of the restricted weight, 11.35 tons of the 5 livestock, and 4.98 tons of the restricted weight.
2. The prosecutor charged 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) to the facts charged in the instant case.
However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense pursuant to Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine pursuant to the corresponding Article," the Constitutional Court shall be punished by a fine pursuant to the corresponding Article." < Amended by Act No. 997, Oct. 28, 2010>
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.