도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of a A truck. B, who is the Defendant’s employee, violated the regulations governing vehicles subject to restriction by loading and operating the freight exceeding 40 tons, a total weight of 44.22 tons at the Korea Highway Corporation’s military business office on March 13, 2006.
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 and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter the same) to the above facts charged and prosecuted the defendant. A summary order subject to retrial was issued and confirmed around that time.
On July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violation pursuant to Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine pursuant to Article 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act" (see Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17, July 30, 2009), which applies in this case, the portion of the above Article of the Road Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
On the other hand, where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision shall be deemed to constitute a crime.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9037 Decided April 15, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992). Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime and thus, is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.