도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On December 7, 1993, A used the summary of the facts charged by the Defendant at around 20:46 on December 7, 1993, the Defendant failed to comply with the direction of guidance without good cause while loading and operating the raw tin on B truck and operating it at the mobile inspection station for the control of the hostile vehicles of No. 29 of the National Highway No. 29 of the National Highway where welfare facilities are located.
2. The public prosecutor instituted a public action against the facts charged in the instant case by applying Articles 86 and 84 subparagraph 2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995). The Constitutional Court rendered a decision 2012Hun-Ga18, Oct. 25, 2012, and Article 86 of the former Road Act “if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation provided for in subparagraph 2 of Article 84 with respect to the corporation’s business, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine provided for in the relevant Article.
Article 47(2) proviso of the Constitutional Court Act provides that “The provision applicable to the above facts charged shall retroactively lose its effect in accordance with the decision of unconstitutionality.”
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding not guilty of the defendant pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.