도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant, a legal entity that aims to engage in mid-term leasing business, operated a vehicle in an excessive state by loading sand of 13.13 tons for each side of the said vehicle at the 3 axis and the 4 axis of the said vehicle, even though he/she was unable to load and operate more than 10 tons per 10 tons at the temporary inspection station in front of the 21.5 tons of a dump truck driver belonging to the Defendant around June 20, 1994. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 14435, Jun. 21, 1994>
2. On the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993 and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) to the facts charged in this case.
In this regard, when an agent, employee or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.
The Constitutional Court Decision 2011 Constitutional Court Decision 2011 Decided December 29, 2011 ruled that the portion " was retroactively effective."
Thus, the facts charged of 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.