도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of A vehicle. Around 16:55 on June 17, 1993, the Defendant, who is the Defendant’s employee, violated the restriction on the operation of a vehicle by the road management authority, even though he could not operate more than 10 tons of restricted weight on the road front of the vehicle control station in front of the vehicle control station in front of the 2 axis, even though he could not operate more than 1.2 tons of more than 1.2 tons, and more than 12.2 tons of more than 3 tons of more than 2.2 tons of more than 12.2 tons of more than 12 tons in
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the above facts charged and prosecuted the defendant, and this court issued a summary order of KRW 10,000 to the defendant as of Aug. 18, 1993, and the above summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant at that time.
However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be fined under Article 84 (2) of the former Road Act, which applies in this case (see Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201) that 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 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 constitutes a case where it does not constitute a crime under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.