도로법위반
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
At around 18:02 on April 29, 1994, the Defendant: (a) had his employee B load and operate a container of 12.30 tons of a dump vehicle C15 tons of a dump vehicle at an inspection station of a c15 tons of a dump vehicle at the c15 tons of a dump vehicle; and (b) 12.10 tons of a dump vehicle at the 3 dump of the above vehicle.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment was amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993 as to the above charged facts, and was amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995.
(hereinafter the same shall apply.
Article 86, Article 84 Subparag. 1, and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act were charged. However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 84 Subparag. 1 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation” (the Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201) that the provision of the same Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso to Article 47(2) of the former Constitutional Court Act (Amended by Act No. 12597, May 20, 2014).
Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this decision is publicly announced pursuant to Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act.