The defendant is a corporation whose purpose is the trucking transport business. The driver of a vehicle shall comply with the road management agency's request for the measurement of loading quantity and related documents conducted in order to preserve the structure of the road and prevent danger in operation

A. On August 28, 2006, at around 04:37, the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s request for the measurement of load load on the said truck by the road management authority, with respect to the Defendant’s duties, who is an employee of the Defendant, who drives (vehicle number omitted) under the 7th line North Korean-west Inspection Station of the 7th line North Korean Road of Gwangju-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun.

B. On October 16, 2006, around 08:31 on October 16, 2006, the Defendant refused the Defendant’s request for the measurement of load on the Defendant’s business, as well as the Defendant’s employee, who is an employee of the Defendant driving the (vehicle Number omitted) Track Track.

2. Determination and conclusion

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records.

On October 14, 2008, the Defendant was indicted for a violation of the Road Act of Chuncheon District Court of 2008Da6771 on October 14, 2008, and a summary order was requested [Article 83(1)4, Article 54(4), and Article 86 of the applicable Act], and on December 11, 2008, a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 was issued for the above summary order, and thereafter, the Defendant filed a request for formal trial on January 13, 2009 with respect to the above summary order, and accordingly, the Defendant continued to trial on April 22, 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 3, 2009 as the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million on April 22, 2009.

However, the Defendant filed a request for retrial on July 23, 2010 with regard to the summary order (No. 2008 High Court Decision 2008 High Court Order No. 6771), which was issued on September 2, 2010, on the premise that the above summary order was amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005 and was based on Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008), the above provision was submitted to the trial and the case continued on the ground that the Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ga17 decided on March 21, 208 declared unconstitutional.

B. On the other hand, Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a request for a retrial may be made where there is a certain reason with regard to "the final judgment of conviction" and the above final judgment of conviction includes a summary order having the same effect as the final judgment. Meanwhile, Article 456 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a summary order shall lose its effect when a judgment is rendered upon a request for formal trial. As in the case of this case, where a judgment becomes final and conclusive after a request for formal trial with regard to the summary order was made in a subsequent formal trial procedure, such summary order shall lose its effect, and such summary order shall no longer be deemed effective, and even if the new trial court knew that there exists a summary order, it shall not be subject to a trial even if it erred with the knowledge that there exists a request for new trial, and it shall be deemed that the decision to commence new trial has become final and conclusive as well as the decision to refer the invalidated summary order, and it shall be deemed that the final and conclusive judgment constitutes a final and conclusive judgment as prescribed in Article 36 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Category of Judges: