도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant is the owner of the vehicle A, and the Defendant’s employee B operated the above vehicle with freight exceeding 1.1 ton of 1.1 ton in the 2 axis and 3 axiss even though he could not operate more than 10 ton of the 10 ton of the 10 ton of the 10 ton of the 11.1 ton of the 10 ton of the 10 ton of the 10 ton of the 10 ton of the 10 ton of the 10 ton of the 10
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) to the above facts charged, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 200,00 to the defendant as of Dec. 8, 1993, and the above summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant, but the defendant requested re-adjudication of the above summary order on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision.
On the other hand, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the 201Hun-Ga24 dated December 29, 201 should be in violation of the Constitution. In accordance with the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law has retroactively lost 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 on the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act