도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Around January 16:21, 1995, the Defendant, as his employee, violated the restrictions on vehicle operation by carrying freight in excess of the load capacity at the examination room of the crackdown on the dynamic vehicles located in the summer-gun of Gangwon-gu, Gangwon-do, the lower court’s employees, on January 4, 1995.
2. As to the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor of the judgment, applying Article 86 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 83 subparag. 2” in the summary order subject to review under Article 84 subparag. 1 appears to be a clerical error in the facts charged in relation to the corporation’s business. When a violation under the provisions of Article 84 subparag. 1 is committed, a public prosecution was instituted against the corporation, and the summary order subject to review was notified and finalized.
However, after a summary order subject to review becomes final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above part violates the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201), and the above part was retroactively invalidated pursuant to Article 47 of the Constitutional Court Act.
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in 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.