도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On August 25, 2005, at around 14:27, 2005, the Defendant’s employee A, with respect to the Defendant’s work, violated the Defendant’s vehicle operation restriction by loading freight of 44.82t at the branch office of Seoul Highway Corporation, which exceeds the freight loading limit (40t).
2. The Constitutional Court ruled that Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 7832, Oct. 28, 2010; 2010HunHun-Ga14, Oct. 14, 15, 2010; 201Hun-Ga21, 21, 27, 35, 38, 444, 70 (merger) applied to the facts charged in the instant case by a public prosecutor was unconstitutional. The part of the said provision of the Act retroactively becomes invalid pursuant to the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
On the other hand, in a case where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provisions shall be deemed to be a crime.
In conclusion, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a crime, and thus, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on June 28, 2007, since it constitutes a case where the facts charged in the instant case does not constitute a crime.
(A) Since the defendant expresses his/her intention not to want to give public notice of the summary of the decision in this court, notwithstanding Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of innocence shall not be announced in accordance with the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.