도로법위반
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. On July 26, 2003, at around 09:11, the driver A was found to have been at the control group under the jurisdiction of violation of restriction on operation on the line of 260 Dog-dong 260 Dog-dong on July 26, 2003. While the route limits the operation of vehicles with a total weight exceeding 10 tons and a total weight exceeding 40 tons during the axis to preserve the structure of the road and prevent danger of operation, the operator A loaded soil on the vehicle B and operated the restricted weight exceeding 4.4 tons of the total weight of 4.4 tons during operation.
2. 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 to the facts charged of this case, where a representative, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the same Article in relation to the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation.
Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act provides that “The portion of the charges in this case shall be retroactively invalidated pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s unconstitutional decision (see Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201) (see Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga3, Dec. 29, 201). Therefore, since the facts charged in this case are not a crime, the charges in this case shall be acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the verdict of innocence shall be published pursuant to Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act.