도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a truck owned by B, and the civilian-defensor, who is an employee of the Defendant, did not comply with the request of the road management authority for measuring the loading quantity at the control station of B-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si on November 10, 1993 while driving the above truck.
2. As to the above facts charged, by applying Article 86 and subparagraph 2 of Article 84 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995), a summary order of KRW 500,000 was issued to the Defendant by the Seoul District Criminal Court as Seoul District Court on February 20, 1995, and the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time, but the Defendant filed a petition for review of the above summary order on July 9, 2013 on the ground that the above provisions were unconstitutional.
On the other hand, with respect to the part of Article 86 of the above Act that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 (2) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." The Constitutional Court Decision 2012Hun-Ga18 Decided October 25, 2012 ruled that the above provision of the law has retroactively lost its effect.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty on the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act