도로법위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. On May 21, 1994, at around 01:37 on May 21, 1994, A, an employee of the defendant, operated the cargo loaded in excess of the limit of operation of the vehicle by the road management authority, by operating the cargo loaded in front of the ebbbal cultivation business office located on the National Highway 305.7km of the Southern Sea Highway.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter “former Road Act”) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the summary order subject to reexamination was notified to the defendant and finalized.
However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, Article 86 of the former Road Act provides that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the same Act with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be punished by the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201)." The above provision of the same Act, 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 pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment in this case is publicly announced pursuant to Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 58(2)