도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A, and the Defendant’s employee B, at around 17:46 on February 14, 1994, operated a cargo loaded with freight exceeding 1.5 tons exceeding 1.5 tons at the 2 axis, even though he was unable to operate more than 10 tons of a stable at the Seonam Expressway Business Office on February 14, 1994.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparag. 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. A summary order subject to retrial was issued and confirmed around 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, is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.