도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A, and the Defendant’s employee B, at around 19:15 on December 11, 1995, operated the above vehicle with a load of more than 1.3 tons exceeding 1.3 tons at 5 livestocks, even though he was unable to operate more than 10 tons of 1.3 tons of 1.3 tons of more than 1.3 tons of 5 livestocks, and around 18:34 on January 17, 1996, at the same place as above.
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) to the above facts charged, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 500,00 to the defendant as of April 96, 1996, and the above summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant, but the defendant filed a request for review of the above summary order on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense 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." On the part of Article 86 of the above Act, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above provision of the law shall be unconstitutional. In accordance with the decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law shall retroactively lose its effect.
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding not guilty of the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure