도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On October 23, 2003, the Defendant: (a) around 06:47 U.S. 06:47, the Defendant: (b) operated the vehicle at a new direction-based military entity’s place of business located in the new direction-setting 10 km line with the Defendant’s employees exceeding 10 tons of the limited axis to I; and (c) violated the road management authority’s restriction on the operation of the vehicle by operating the vehicle in the status of
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case, and applied Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the same Act, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 300,000 on February 12, 2004, which was subject to a fine of KRW 300,000, and became final and conclusive around that time.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation" (see Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010) that applied to this case, the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
On the other hand, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provisions shall be deemed to be a crime.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do9037, Apr. 15, 2005; 91Do2825, May 8, 1992). Thus, the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where the facts charged in this case is not a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.