도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On January 23, 2003, at around 11:29 on January 23, 2003, the Defendant, a his employee, operated a D truck loaded with freight of 11.27 tons in the 4 livestock, exceeding 10 tons of the 10 tons of the 10 tons of the 11.27 tons of the 4 livestock, thereby violating the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation.
2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the above charged facts 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 above charged facts.
However, in Article 86 of the Road Act, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (Article 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged) of the same Act, and thereby, the aforementioned provision of the Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts charged, retroactively loses its effect.
3. If so, the above facts charged constitute a crime and thus, a judgment of not guilty is rendered in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.