도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On September 28, 1994, the Defendant was a corporation established for trucking transport business, etc., and around September 28, 1994, around 02:12, the Defendant violated the provisions on restrictions on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority with respect to the Defendant’s duties by loading and operating the freight truck with a gross weight of 11.1 ton of total weight of 37.5 tons exceeding 10 ton of 10 ton of 10 ton of 17.5 ton of 37.5 ton
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case. However, the Constitutional Court ruled in Article 86 of the former Road Act that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2 with respect to the corporation's business, the portion that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provision shall also be punished by the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38 of Oct. 28, 2010, etc.). Thus, the aforementioned provision of the Act retroactively
Thus, 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.