도로법위반
The defendant is innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: B, an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management agency by driving C freight trucks owned by the Defendant in excess of 10t of the 10t out of the axis in front of the check-up station in front of the check-up station in front of the Busan Metropolitan Office, the Korea Highway, the Hanam Highway, the Hanam Highway, the Korea Highway, the Gyeongnam Highway, and the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle.
2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter “former Road Act”).
In this regard, the Constitutional Court on November 29, 201 shall, when an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) of the former Road Act in relation to the business of the corporation, also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.
“The Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ga317 Decided November 29, 201 (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga24, Nov. 29, 201). In a case where the legal provision on punishment becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality (see, e.g., Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act). In a case where the legal provision on punishment becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the Defendant case indicted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2825, May 8, 1992; 2005Do8317, Jun. 28, 2007). Ultimately, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where it does not constitute a crime.
Therefore, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.