도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Around 11:36 January 19, 2003, the summary of the facts charged charged, C, an employee of the Defendant, was a restricted area in which the Defendant’s work cannot be operated in excess of 10 tons per annum at the center of the coastline 6.96km Seoul, but was loaded at the 4 axis of the D vehicle 11.2 tons at the 5 axis and 11.1 tons at each of the 1.2 tons and 1.1 tons of the D vehicle.
2. The prosecutor brought a public action against the facts charged in the instant case by applying Articles 86 and 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; hereinafter “former Road Act”). However, the part that “where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act due to the decision of the Constitutional Court on Oct. 28, 2010, Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 1014, Oct. 14, 2010; 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, and 70 of the same Act, the portion that “if the corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the same Act, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article” becomes retroactively null and void.
Thus, the facts charged in 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.