도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On February 8, 2007, around 20:41, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, was in violation of the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority, by operating the 3 livestock 11.72 tons of freight loaded with B at the 2nd air conditioning 2nd line in the South Sea, the 2nd air conditioning 1.8km in the South Sea.
2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.
However, since Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 12597, May 2014) provides that "if an agent, employee, or any other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant Article," the part of which "if such an offense is committed, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article." (Ruling en banc Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged) of the Constitutional Court en banc Decision, October 28, 2010) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 12597, May 20, 2014) shall be retroactively invalidated pursuant to the proviso to Article 47 (2) of the former Constitutional Court Act.
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.