도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that A, an employee of the Defendant, operated a vehicle in a state exceeding the minimum weight on June 13, 200, with respect to the Defendant’s business.
2. Determination
A. The prosecutor prosecuted the above charged facts by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008).
B. In Article 86 of the above Act, the Constitutional Court made a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." [The Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga17 Decided July 30, 2009 or 2010Hun-Ga14, 2010Hun-Ga15, 2010Hun-Ga15, 2010Hun-Ga21, 2010Hun-Ga27, 2010Hun-Ga27, 2010Hun-Ga35, 2010Hun-Ga38, 2010Hun-Ga38 (Joint), 2010Hun-Ga44 (Joint), 2010Hun-Ga70 (Joint), 2010Hun-Ga70)] of the above Act becomes retroactively null and void.
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 Decisions 2004Do9037 delivered on April 15, 2005, and 91Do2825 delivered on May 8, 1992). 3. Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that acquitted the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.