도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. With respect to his duties, the Defendant violated the restriction on the vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the said vehicle in a condition that he is loaded with freight of 11.27 tons at the 4-scale truck in excess of 10 tons of the limited weight to C truck at the 138.5km at the Dogwon's branch office of the Korea Highway around June 17, 2003, around 17:27:27, the employees of B, who were his employees, violated the restriction on his vehicle operation.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; and the summary order of KRW 300,000 was notified and finalized in this court.
However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence 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" shall be imposed on the Constitutional Court [the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 shall be imposed on the corporation]. The above provision of the above Act, which is applicable provisions of the facts charged, has retroactively lost its effect.
3. According to the conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly notified under Article 58(2) of