도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that H, an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on vehicle operation by a road management authority, by operating the I truck more than 13 tons of the restriction on vehicle operation on vehicle operation in front of the Sungjin inspection station around November 11, 1997, by operating the I truck more than 13 tons of the restriction on vehicle operation, in excess of 20 tons of the gross weight of the I truck.
On the other hand, the prosecutor prosecuted the charged facts of this case by applying Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), and the summary order of KRW 1,00,000 was notified and finalized in this court.
However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "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, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," the part of the decision that "the fine under the corresponding Article shall be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution, shall be imposed on the Constitutional Court (see Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the above facts charged, has retroactively lost 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.