도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. With respect to the facts charged, the Defendant, the user of the Defendant, loaded and operated the 11.7 tons of the B vehicle at the 2 axis of the B vehicle at the 11.7 tons, 11.9 tons at the 3 axis, and 12.9 tons at the 4 axis of the C vehicle at the 15:30 on Feb. 28, 2000, the 15:30 on Feb. 15, 200, and the 13.0 tons at the 3 axis of the 4 axis, and operated the vehicle at the 718 line prior to the 18th of the 15th of March 15, 200, at the 718 line of the above vehicle at the 11.9 tons prior to the C, 13.0 tons at the 3 axis, and 12.9 tons at the 4th of the 4th of the 5th of the 5th of the said vehicle.
2. In the case where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under 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), which is a legal provision applicable to the facts charged of this case, and Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), which is a legal provision applicable to the facts charged of this case
The Constitutional Court Decision 2010HunBa14, 15, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merger) Decided October 28, 2010 and Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act was retroactively invalidated.
In addition, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provision shall be deemed to be a crime.
Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.