도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A, and around October 14, 2002, around 14:34, the Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, operated the cargo loaded with the cargo of 47.7 tons in the state of loading the cargo of 11.7 tons and 11.9 tons at 5 tons, even though he could not operate the cargo exceeding 10 tons in the shape of the 47.7 tons, even though he could not operate the cargo loaded with the cargo of 11.7 tons at 5 tons.
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 above charged facts charged and prosecuted the defendant, and the summary order subject to review was issued and confirmed 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 act in violation of Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be fined in accordance with the Article concerned (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2010HunGa38, Oct. 28, 2010)" in Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to this case, the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect in accordance with 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.