도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On April 30, 1994, at around 15:53 on April 15, 1994, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: A, an employee of the Defendant, was in violation of the restriction on the vehicle operation of the road management authority by loading and operating the steel bars of more than 10 tons of the limitation on the vehicle owned by the Defendant B, which are the criteria for the restriction on the vehicle’s business, on the 10 tons of the limitation on the vehicle’s business, at the control station of the personnel-restricted vehicle located in the Dog-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun
2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the facts charged by 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) that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the same Article with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article." Accordingly, the summary order subject to retrial against the defendant issued by this court became final and conclusive.
However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision (the Constitutional Court Order 201HunGa24 Decided December 29, 201). Accordingly, the above legal provision was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged 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.