도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On August 31, 200, at around 17:55 on August 31, 200, A, an employee of the Defendant in the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, operated the Defendant’s vehicle B with freight exceeding 11.43 tons in front of the inspection station of the restriction on operation in the front of the inspection station in the national highway No. 7 on the front of the river-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, which violated the road management authority’s restriction on
2. As to Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), which is a joint penal provision among the applicable provisions to the facts charged in this case, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision on Oct. 28, 2010 that "where an agent, employee or other employee of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the corporation's business, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under Article 83 (1) 2 of the Act shall also be punished by the Constitution, and the part of the above Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Oct. 28, 2010) shall retroactively lose its effect pursuant to the proviso to Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.