도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On November 11, 2004, around 08:44 on November 11, 2004, the Defendant’s employees C, with respect to the Defendant’s business, operated the 11.04 tons of the D vehicle on the second axis at the west branch office 284.9km branch office, and violated the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation.
2. The prosecutor examined the judgment of the court below, applying Article 86 and Article 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 this case. The Constitutional Court ruled in Article 86 that "where an agent, employee or other employee of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the corporation's business, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation," which is a violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38 of Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, according to the above decision of unconstitutionality, the legal provision of the above facts charged, which is a applicable provision of the Act, retroactively loses its effect.
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.