도로법위반
The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.
1. The summary of the facts charged is a corporation established for the purpose of trucking transport business, etc., and A, an employee of the Defendant, was in violation of the restriction on the operation of the Road Management Agency by operating a total weight of 36 tons, even though it was unable to operate more than 32 tons in total weight according to the road law and the announcement of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, around May 21, 2003.
2. As to the facts charged of this case, the public prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008). As to this, the summary order against Defendant was notified and finalized on June 22, 2004 by the court.
In this regard, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee or any other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation, a fine under the pertinent Article shall also be imposed on the corporation, which shall also be imposed on the corporation, in violation of the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga23, 24, 36, 39, 47, 50, the part of the above legal provision, which is the legal provision applicable to the facts charged, retroactively becomes void according to the decision of unconstitutionality.
3. According to the conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, a defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a summary of the judgment against the defendant is to be published under Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.