도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. With respect to his duties, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of road management works by operating the 10 tons of the 2 axis of the B vehicle in excess of 1.35 tons of the 10 tons of the 10 tons of the total weight, 40 tons of the width, 2.5 meters in height, 4.0 meters in length, and 16.7 meters in length, on October 17, 2005, in order to preserve road structures and prevent any danger to traffic on the roads front of the business establishment northwest of the Southern Sea Highway.
2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution for the facts charged of this case by applying Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same), and the court issued a summary order subject to a fine of 300,000 won on Jan. 25, 2006 and confirmed around that time.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation" (see Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010) that applied to this case, 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 the legal provision becomes retroactively effective 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 Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 delivered on May 8, 1992). Thus, the facts charged in this case is ultimately final.