도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of the A truck, and the Defendant’s employee B violated the restriction on operation by loading more than 1.035 tons of the 3 livestock while operating the 10 tons of the 16:16:6 on June 1, 2004 on the said vehicle at a point of 89.5 km away from the 89.5 km Highway.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied 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) to the facts charged in the instant case, and applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the same Act, and the defendant was issued a summary order subject to retrial, and the summary order subject to retrial was finalized around that time
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article." (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined)) 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 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do9037, Apr. 15, 2005; 91Do2825, May 8, 1992). Therefore, the instant facts charged constitute a crime, and thus, is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.