도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. On April 25, 2004, A, an employee of the Defendant in the facts charged of the instant case, violated an order issued by the competent authority prohibiting vehicle traffic exceeding 40 tons in total weight of 40 tons and over 44.4 tons in a state of freight loaded with B car truck with freight exceeding 4.4 tons in order to preserve the structure of the road and prevent traffic danger at a location of the Jinju Office located at 71.79 km point of the Southern Sea Highway from the point of the order of the Korea Highway Corporation, at around 20:33 on April 25, 2004.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case. The Constitutional Court held that "where an agent, employee or other employee of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act with respect to the corporation's business, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under Article 83(1)2" in Article 86 of the former Road Act shall be punished by the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38 (Joint) of Oct. 28, 2010). Thus, the above provision of the Road Act retroactively lost its effect.
Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly announced pursuant to Article