도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around 19:00 on October 19, 1994, the Defendant, an employee of C, operated the vehicle operation restriction of the road management authority by operating the vehicle with a weight of 10.4 tons exceeding 10.4 tons in weight of 2-scale weight, 3-scale weight of 11.1 ton in the inspection station for the Southern Sea Highway, in excess of 10 ton of the restricted livestock.
2. The prosecutor charged the facts charged in this case by applying Articles 86, 84 subparagraph 1, and 54 (1) 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 that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under subparagraph 1 of Article 84 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 same Act, that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits a violation under subparagraph 1 of Article 84, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 2011).
3. In conclusion, 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.