도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the owner of B's B's freight and the user of A. A, and A around December 1, 2005, around 16:17, around 16:17, at a point in the East Sea Line 160.1km from the Southern Sea Line 160.1km, with a limited weight exceeding 10t, with a weight exceeding 11.44t, and (2) around December 5, 2005, the Defendant violated the restriction on the vehicle operation of the road management authority with respect to the Defendant's business by operating the freight loaded with a restricted weight exceeding 10t from an Ansan Line 16 km from the Youngdong Line 16 km Line 205.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment was amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 as to the above charged facts, and it was amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005.
(a) The same shall apply;
Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act applied to this case on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine provided for in the relevant provision shall also be imposed on the corporation” (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2010HunGa38, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso to Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act. In addition, where the law or law provisions related to punishment retroactively become invalid due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the case of the defendant who was not guilty as a crime by applying the relevant provision of the Act constitutes a crime under Article 86 of the former Road Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5397.