도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant is the owner of A truck. On October 7, 1995, around 11:15, the Defendant, who is the Defendant’s employee, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management authority by operating the said truck at the entrance of the coast highway located in the Dong, Incheon, China, with a gross weight exceeding 40 tons.260 tons.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 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 above facts charged, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 50,00 to the defendant as of February 96, 1996, and the above summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant, but the defendant filed a request for review of the above summary order on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision 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, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." On the part of Article 86 of the above Act, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above provision of the law shall be unconstitutional. In accordance with the decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law shall retroactively lose its effect.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.