도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. At around 00:55 on December 4, 1995, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, loaded freight exceeding 11.5 tons on the second axis of E vehicle in excess of 10 tons from among limited 10 tons on the street in front of his/her establishment, thereby violating the restriction on vehicle operation by the road management authority with respect to the Defendant’s duties.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005) to the facts charged. The Constitutional Court ruled in Article 86 that "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation," that "the relevant provision of a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation," is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14,15,21,27, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merger).
Thus, 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.