도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of B truck, and C is the driver of the above vehicle. On March 15, 1995, at around 10:00 on March 15, 1995, C, who is an employee of the defendant, performed an act in violation of the restrictions on vehicle operation of the road management authority by loading and operating the freight of 10.7t and 4t on the third axis of the above vehicle on the road front of the Danam-si Highway Highway Highway Road Access Road, Sungnam-si, in excess of 10t of the restricted axis.
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 facts charged in the instant case, and the defendant was charged with a summary order subject to retrial, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.
However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive on October 28, 2010, the part of Article 86 of the former Road Act that "where an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an act of violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the pertinent Article shall also be imposed on the corporation, which is in violation of the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 34, 444, 70, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts charged in this case) was retroactively invalidated according to the above decision of unconstitutionality.
Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.