도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case was that the driver B, who was under his control, driven the C 18 tons of car trucks owned by the Defendant on January 11, 2002 to the Seoul Myeonkh in accordance with the Coastal Highway. Around January 15, 2002, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority in relation to the business of the said company by allowing the driver to drive the said truck with the 10 tons of 11.1 ton, 5 ton, 11.3 ton, 5 ton, and 11.3 ton, while the vehicle was under his control on the road before the Korea Highway Corporation, located at a point of 346.5 kilometers of the said Highway, even though its operation is restricted.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 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 part that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the corporation's business, the corporation shall be fined under the corresponding Article." As to this, the defendant was ordered to take a summary order on May 2, 2002 by the Daejeon District Court on May 2, 2002, and the above summary order was finalized on May 26, 2002.
However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged) Decided October 28, 2010), and 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.