도로법위반
The defendants are all innocent.
1. On November 12, 2004, the summary order subject to review and the summary of the facts charged of the summary order subject to review (to be supported by the argument of the Daejeon District Court) and the summary of the facts charged, a freight driver’s temporary violation of the summary order (to be supported by the Daejeon District Court Decision 2004Da3706 AB B B 2006 on November 18, 2004: 04:35 on November 12, 2004, approximately 2005Da234 CDD 204 on November 12, 2004, the violation of the gross weight limitation violation of the gross weight limitation of the Daejeon Southern Line, and the violation of the restriction on the gross weight limitation of the fleet's business establishment on the transmission of YY-si, 205Da558 A E on December 30, 204: 206Da658 on December 31, 2006.
2. Of the facts charged on January 7, 2006 and 658, the prosecutor brought a public prosecution on this part of the facts charged by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008).
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) 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 Decision 2008Hun-Ga17 Decided July 30, 2009 ruled that the effect shall be retroactively invalidated.
The prosecutor of the remaining facts charged charged brought 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 this part of the facts charged.
However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense pursuant to Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine pursuant to the corresponding Article in the above Act shall also be punished by the Constitutional Court decision, such as Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ga38 Decided October 28, 2010.