도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. A, who is an employee of the defendant, was driving a B vehicle on January 12, 1995 with respect to the business around 14:00 and was driving on a 49 local road in the field of the Gyeonggi-Pari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri, and at that time, a third-scale storage exceeding 10 tons among the 13.0 tons, and more than 40 tons with gross weight at the time, violated the restrictions on the operation of the road management authority. The defendant neglected to guide and supervise the above violation.
2. The public prosecution of this case against the defendant is governed by the provisions of Articles 86 (Joint Penal Provisions), 83 (1) 2 and 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005).
However, the Constitutional Court decided on October 28, 2010 Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, and 70 (merger) and declared that Article 86 of the former Road Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an act of violating Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined in accordance with the pertinent provision shall also be imposed on the corporation."
According to this decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated.
In a case where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively effective due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a case where the defendant's case is not committed.
3. Conclusion, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a crime.
In accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant shall be acquitted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.