도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. On January 26, 1994, around 23:45 on January 26, 1994, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s employee requested a measurement to verify the restriction on the operation of the said cargo while operating B truck in the state of loading the cargo at the Yannam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Yan-gun, Yan-gun, and the inspection station of the said cargo, but
2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the above charged facts by applying Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 2 and Article 54 (2) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995).
However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violating Article 83 (1) 3 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article," the Constitutional Court Order 2012Hun-Ga18 dated October 25, 2012, retroactively lost its effect.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case 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, and the summary of the judgment in this case is publicly announced under Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 58(2) of the Criminal