도로교통법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is around 09:35 on June 2, 1994, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the Road Management Agency by failing to comply with the request of the road management agency for the measurement of loading quantity while the Defendant’s employee was operating a freight vehicle owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s business.
2. In the case where an agent, employee or other worker of a juristic person commits an offense under Article 84 subparagraph 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), Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995), the prosecutor of the judgment shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.
A public prosecution was instituted by applying the part "," and the defendant received a summary order subject to review and the summary order against the defendant became final and conclusive.
In this regard, on October 25, 2012, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision of the law (Supreme Court Decision 2012Hun-Ga18 Decided October 25, 2012). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the provision of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.