도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is a corporation established for the purpose of trucking transport business, etc., and the defendant's employee A, in connection with the defendant's business, was in violation of the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the Road Management Agency by operating B-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-
2. In the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (Joint) Decided October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court held that when an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), which applies to the facts charged in the instant case, the said corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article.
“The Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on the part above, and thereby, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the main sentence of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.
3. If so, 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 Criminal Procedure Act.