도로법위반
The defendant is innocent.
The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: “The Defendant, around 04:00 on March 1, 2006, operated a truck exceeding the limit of the 2 axis at the 88 Highway Road Construction Business Office, thereby violating the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority.”
With respect to the above facts charged, the prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying the provision of Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008) that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding provision," and the above summary order against the defendant was finalized after receiving the summary order.
However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on July 30, 2009 with respect to the above legal provision (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17 Decided July 30, 2009). Accordingly, the above legal provision was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.