도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Although the Defendant, as the owner of B vehicle, took measures such as making occasional culture to prevent violation of the restriction on operation, the Defendant, at around 06:00 on July 26, 2007, carried a concrete file, which is a construction material, into the said vehicle, and operated in excess of 10 tons in weight and 40 tons in total weight during operation, even though he is unable to operate more than 40 tons in the said vehicle, at around 06:0 on July 26, 2007, in order to ensure that A is unable to carry more than 1.27 tons in weight and 44.28 tons in total weight.
2. The above facts charged constitute Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008). However, according to the decision of the Constitutional Court, the above part of Article 86 of the former Road Act, "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation, as well as the corporation, was retroactively invalidated pursuant to the decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 86 of the former Road Act."
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act