도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of A truck, and B, who is the Defendant’s employee, refused to comply with the demand for the measurement of load load at an inspection station located in the documents located in Changwon-gun, Changwon-gun, Gyeongwon on September 13, 1994.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) to the facts charged, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 50,00 to the defendant on Jan. 19, 1995, and the summary order became final and conclusive after notification to the defendant at that time, but the defendant filed a request for review of the summary order that became final and conclusive on the ground that the above legal provision was unconstitutional.
On the other hand, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (2) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." On the part of the Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ga18 dated October 25, 2012, the above provision of the law has retroactively lost its effect.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.