도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. At around 15:00 on July 16, 2005, B, an employee of the Defendant, loaded construction wastes of 11.25 tons at the front of the entrance of the fire-fighting bridge at the entrance of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fire-Fighting Zone, and operated the said truck as loaded more than 1.25 tons with a restricted weight of more than 1.25 tons. On September 24, 2005, B, an employee of the Defendant, was in violation of the restriction on the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle by carrying construction wastes of more than 11.85 tons at the mobile station prior to the decline of the outer Engine of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangseo-gu, with a restricted weight of more than 10 tons.85 tons, on the part of the Defendant’s duties.
2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor instituted 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 by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), and the summary order of KRW 700,000 was notified and finalized in this court.
However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an offense 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," in Article 86 of the above Act, violates the Constitution (Supreme Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged). Accordingly, the applicable provisions of the facts charged in this case, the applicable provisions of which contain an employee's offense, retroactively lose its effect.
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 the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.