도로법위반
1. The defendant is not guilty;
2.A summary of this judgment shall be published.
1. Around May 15, 2003, the Defendant, a driver belonging to the Defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority in relation to the Defendant’s business by driving the Defendant’s business as loaded more than 11.12 tons of large-scale cargo vehicle at the front of the Seoul Highway branch office located in the Suwon Highway branch office located in Busan 406km in the direction of the Busan Highway, with a vehicle of 318 tons in front of the Seoul Highway branch office and more than 10 tons of large cargo vehicle
2. The public prosecutor filed a public prosecution against the defendant 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) to the facts charged in this case.
However, the part of Article 86 of the former Road Act that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant Article." Thus, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the relevant provision of the same Act is in violation of the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined) decided Oct. 28, 2010); and the provision of the same Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso to Article 47 (2) of the former Constitutional Court Act (Amended by Act No. 12597, May 20, 2014).
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly announced pursuant to the main sentence