도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is around 23:30 on April 14, 1994, at the 79 km main business office of the Honam Expressway, and even at the 79 km main business office of the above branch, the above branch cannot be operated in excess of 10 tons during a stable season, A, an employee of the defendant, operated more than 1.2 tons in the 3 axis and 1.0 tons in the 5 stable with respect to the defendant's work.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 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 in the instant case.
However, in Article 86 of the above Act, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence provided for in subparagraph 1 of Article 84 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article." (The Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201) is in violation of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.