도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On January 18, 2001, at around 15:23, 200, the Defendant violated the restriction on the vehicle operation of the road management authority in relation to the Defendant’s duties by allowing the driver of the vehicle to drive a c 18 tons metric truck with a 10 ton of 5 ton of 11.1 ton of 5 to drive a c c 18 ton of 5 ton of c walk trucks in the direction of Seoul, in front of the former branch office of the Korea Highway Corporation, which is a point of 119 km in front of the former branch office of the Seoul metropolitan branch office of the Seoul metropolitan branch.
2. The public prosecutor filed a public prosecution against the defendant by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the facts charged in this case.
However, the part of 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 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." Thus, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the Article 86 of the former Road Act is in violation of the Constitution (Supreme Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (Joint) Decided October 28, 2010). The above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.