도로법위반
The defendant is innocent.
1. Around 6:08 on March 19, 200, the summary of the facts charged C, an employee of the Defendant, operated a 10 ton truck in an excessive state, 10 ton of which the 11.4 tons of the 11.4 tons of the franchis of the D8 tons of the franchisn truck at the ebbbbbbn ebbn ebbbn ebbbn sub-Sacheon-si, Seocheon-
2. The prosecutor brought a public action against the facts charged in the instant case by applying Articles 86 and 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; hereinafter “former Road Act”). However, the part that “where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act due to the decision of the Constitutional Court on Oct. 28, 2010, Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 1014, Oct. 14, 2010; 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, and 70 of the same Act, the portion that “if the corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the same Act, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article” becomes retroactively null and void.
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.