도로법위반
The defendant is innocent.
1. On March 18, 1996, at around 04:19 on March 18, 1996, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant’s employee loaded and operated the freight in excess of the limit limit on the road 13.2 km of the Guro Highway.
2. The Constitutional Court Order (1) 2008Hun-Ga17 decided July 30, 2009, and Article 86 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005 and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008), which applied the facts charged by a public prosecutor to the facts charged in this case, sentenced an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation to a fine under Article 83 (1) 2 of the Act, to a fine under Article 83 (2) 5 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Oct. 28, 2010) and Article 9 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4920 of Oct. 28, 2010; 209Hun-Ga38 of the same Act) as an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation under Article 94 of the former Road Act to a fine under Article 9 of the same Act.
Therefore, the provisions of the former Road Act applied to this case retroactively lose its effect in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the Criminal Procedure Act.