도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On June 10, 2004, at around 06:14, the Defendant: (a) as the owner of a freight truck; and (b) as to his duties, the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the truck with its width exceeding 2.5m of the restricted vehicle width exceeding 3.2m.
2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 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) to the facts charged in the instant case.
However, in Article 86 of the above Act, where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article," the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of 2010Hun-Ga38, October 28, 2010, retroactively invalidated its effect.
Thus, 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.