도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On April 10, 1994, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant loaded and operated the freight to the Defendant-owned vehicle C operated by the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, at the early night inspection station located on the street 905 line of Do road 905 on the back of the Seocho-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and escaped, refusing to comply with the Defendant’s duty to control the hostile vehicle from the half of the hostile vehicle.
2. As to the facts charged of this case, the prosecutor of the judgment shall, in case where an agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits a violation under Article 84 (2) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995), be punished by a fine under the corresponding provision of Article 86.
A public prosecution was instituted by applying the part "," and the defendant received a summary order subject to review and the summary order against the defendant became final and conclusive.
In this regard, on October 25, 2012, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision of the law (Supreme Court Decision 2012Hun-Ga18 Decided October 25, 2012), thereby, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the provision of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.