도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant's employee A refused to comply with the road management authority's request for the measurement of load on the front of the mobile distance of the shot-gu, Jinyang-gun, Jinyang-gun, Jinyang-gun on March 17, 1994 at around 05:10.
However, Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) which applies mutatis mutandis to the facts charged in this case provides that "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation provided for in subparagraph 2 of Article 84 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is retroactively invalidated by the Constitutional Court Decision 2012Hun-Ga18 decided Oct. 25, 2012 and the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, 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.