도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On August 4, 2001, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case was in violation of the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management agency by failing to comply with the request of the road management agency for loading, while the inspection station of the control of the restriction on the operation of the 14 line located on the 14 line of the Seoyang National Road of Ulsan-do, Ulsan-do, Ulsan-si, Ulsan-do, the Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, was operating the freight vehicle owned by the Defendant with respect to the Defendant’s business, and thus
2. The prosecutor of the judgment shall also impose a fine under Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) with respect to the facts charged of this case where the agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in relation to the business of the corporation.
A public prosecution was instituted by applying the part "," and the defendant received a summary order subject to review and the above summary order against the defendant became final and conclusive.
In this regard, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on October 28, 2010 with respect to the above provision of the law (Supreme Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (Joint) Decided October 28, 2010) and thus, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
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.