도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Around 07:45 on Nov. 26, 1994, the Defendant: (a) operated the said vehicle while loaded with freight of 11.2 tons at the 2 axis of the said vehicle and violated the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation by driving the said vehicle in excess of 10 tons of the limitation to C in relation to the Defendant’s duties on the road in front of the 1041-ray Who-do Dop, Gyeongsan-gun, Gyeongsan-gun, Gyeongsan-gun, Gyeongsan-gun, Seosan-do; and (b)
2. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) that “if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84(1) with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article,” which is applicable to the facts charged in this case by the public prosecutor, in the decision of 201Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29
Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
3. Conclusion, the instant facts charged constitute a crime that is not committed.
Innocence shall be pronounced under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.