도로법위반
The defendant is innocent.
1. Specific facts as to the facts charged [2013 Height 1109] A’s violation of vehicle operation restriction [2013 Height 1110] around October 11, 2006 by a Defendant’s employee [2013 Height 110] A’s violation of vehicle operation restriction around November 16, 2006, a Defendant’s employee [2013 Height 111] A’s violation of vehicle operation restriction around June 12, 2006, a Defendant’s employee [205 Height 112] A’s violation of vehicle operation restriction around May 13: 13:35, 2006 / [2013 Height 1113] Defendant’s violation of vehicle operation restriction around March 314, 2006 / [2015 Height 13, a Defendant’s employee of the Defendant’s employee of the Defendant’s / [2015 Height 14:5, 2014 Height / [214.135 Go14, /2014.201
2. The provision of the former Road Act, which applied to the above facts charged, was retroactively invalidated by the Constitutional Court that rendered a decision of unconstitutionality.
Therefore, since the above facts charged constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.