도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On November 16, 200, at around 14:54 on November 16, 200, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, loaded silents on C vehicles with respect to his duties, and violated the restriction on operation of vehicles by operating more than 11.07 tons of the said vehicle by operating the restriction on operation of vehicles in excess of 1.07 tons of the 10 tons of total weight, 40 tons of loading height, 4.0 meters in width, 2.50 meters in length, and 16.7 meters in length, in order to preserve the road structure and prevent traffic danger in the heart, the Defendant: (a) was an employee of the Defendant.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment was amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 as to the facts charged of this case, and was amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005.
(a) The same shall apply;
Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 12597, May 2014) provides that “When an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83(1)2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation” in Article 86 of the same Act shall be imposed on the corporation, which shall be subject to a violation of the Constitution (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 444, 70, which is declared as of October 28, 2010). Accordingly, according to the above decision, the part of the above Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act (amended by Act No. 12597, May 20, 2014) which is applicable to the facts charged of the instant case is retroactively invalidated pursuant to the proviso to Article 47(2).
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.