도로법위반
The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.
1. The Defendant, in the instant charges, violated the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation by operating a vehicle exceeding the limited axis around 2003.
2. As to the above facts charged, a public prosecutor was prosecuted by applying 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; hereinafter “former Road Act”). However, the Constitutional Court decided on Oct. 28, 2010 on Oct. 14, 15, 215, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merger), and Article 86 of the former Road Act "where an agent, employee, or any other employee of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act in relation to the corporation's business, the pertinent provision of Article 86 of the former Road Act shall also be imposed on the corporation, which retroactively loses its effect."
Therefore, since the above facts charged constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is judged not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced under Article 440