도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On June 11, 1998, at around 20:52 on June 11, 1998, the Defendant, as the owner of a freight truck; B, an employee of the Defendant, as to his duties, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by driving the freight of 11.9 tons on the third axis of the said truck in excess of 10 tons of the restricted stable weight at the small-scale truck business office; and the freight of 11.9 tons on the fourth axis, as the road management authority’s vehicle operation.
2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution 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 facts charged in the instant case.
However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense pursuant to Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine pursuant to the corresponding Article," the Constitutional Court shall be punished by a fine pursuant to the corresponding Article."
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.