도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On June 11, 2001, A, an employee of the defendant, violated the restriction on operation of an excessive vehicle by operating the 10 tons of 11.3 tons of the above 5 metric tons on the road at a point of 160.8 km from the monthly office of construction in Korea, a road of 160.8 km from June 11, 2001, and thereby violating the restriction on operation of an excessive vehicle.
2. On the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of January 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of December 30, 2005) to the facts charged in this case.
In this regard, the Constitutional Court shall, when an agent, employee or other worker of a juristic person commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the juristic person under Article 86 of the above Act, be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.
“The Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, October 28, 2010, rendered a decision that the part is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, October 28, 201).
According to the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law, which is applicable to the above facts charged, was retroactively invalidated.
Thus, the facts charged of 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.