도로법위반
The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence of this case is publicly notified.
1. On October 25, 2003, around 10:57, the Defendant, as his employee, violated the instant charges against the restriction on the vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating a C vehicle while being loaded with freight of 11.34 tons in the 11.34 tons of the net measurement value on the 3 livestock, and 11.96 tons of the net measurement value on the 4 livestock, in excess of 10 tons of the weight limit in the 10 tons of the 3 livestock, at the 10:57 T vehicle control inspection station located in the 10th of the 4 livestock
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, Oct. 28, 2010; the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2 with respect to 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 shall be imposed against the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010) that “if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the provision of the above Act, which
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of the defendant is publicly announced under Article 58(2)