도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the owner of the B truck of A driving and the user of A, and A around 07:50 on March 7, 2005, around 16.5 km from the Incheon Expressway Starting point of 16.5 km, Seoul Highway Corporation, in the Incheon Highway Business Office, operated the cargo loaded with the cargo to cover the 11.86t weight of the 4 livestock, thereby violating the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation in relation to the Defendant’s business.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment was amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 as to the above charged facts, and it was amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005.
(a) The same shall apply;
Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act applied to this case on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine provided for in the relevant provision shall also be imposed on the corporation” (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2010HunGa38, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso to Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act. In addition, where the law or law provisions related to punishment retroactively become invalid due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the case of the defendant who was not guilty as a crime by applying the relevant provision of the Act constitutes a crime under Article 86 of the former Road Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5397.