도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. On August 5, 1994, at around 20:40 on August 5, 1994, A, an employee of the Defendant in the facts charged of the instant case, operated B vehicle in an overfinite state of 12 tons in violation of an order of the relevant authority prohibiting vehicle traffic with a total weight of 10 tons or more on the national highways prior to the Haan-gun, the Haan-gun, the Cuk-gun, the C&D, in order
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation, as well as the corporation, shall be imposed on the violation of the Constitution (Supreme Court Order 201Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201). Thus, the above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect.
Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly announced pursuant to Article