도로법위반
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The summary of the facts charged is a corporation established for the purpose of owning trucks, such as B, and transporting cargo and making investments incidental thereto, and the above road is a local road of 706 of the Napo-gun, Mapo-gun, Mapo-gun, Mapo-gun, Mapo-gun, Mapo-gun, Mapo-gun, Mapo-gun, Mapo-gun, Mapo-gun, Mapo-do, 14:40 on July 20, 193. However, although the above road is limited to a 10 tons or more of the above vehicle, C, an employee of the defendant, was over 12 tons of sand on the above vehicle and operated with 1.8 tons of 4 livestock.
2. The public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution against the facts charged in this case by applying the provision of Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding provision," and the above summary order against the defendant was finalized after receiving the summary order subject to review.
However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision (the Constitutional Court Order 201HunGa24 Decided December 29, 201). Accordingly, the above legal provision was retroactively invalidated in accordance with 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.