도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the facts charged is around 19:20 on June 11, 1993, the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the Defendant’s employees at the 2nd 2nd 11.5t and 10.8t on the 3nd mn, in excess of 10t of the restriction on vehicle weight loading of CF vehicles owned by the Defendant, in front of the top 28.6km km at the top 18.6km between the 19:6km and the 3rd mal.
2. As to the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying the penal provision on the corporation under 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). As to this, the summary order against which the defendant is punished by a fine of 200,000 won was notified and finalized in this court.
However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence provided for in subparagraph 1 of Article 84 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in the corresponding Article shall be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (Supreme Court Order 2011HunGa24 Decided December 29, 201). The part of the above legal provision, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts charged, has retroactively lost its effect.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of the defendant is publicly notified under Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided