도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. A, an employee of the Defendant, in connection with the Defendant’s duties, was in violation of the restriction on the operation of a vehicle by carrying 1.08 tons of freight from the national highway No. 31 located in the 31st century, which restricts the operation of an excessive vehicle exceeding 40 tons of 10 tons or gross weight of 10 tons of freight on May 8, 1999, from the national highway No. 31 located in the 31st century, which is located in the 11.08 tons and 11.51 tons of freight on the 4nd 4th metres. On November 17, 1999, when the operation of an excessive vehicle was restricted by 38 meters in height of 4 meters at the national highway located in the 38th rith of Sari-ri, which was in violation of the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the management agency.
2. The judgment prosecutor applied Article 86 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 defendant for the prosecution of this case.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violation provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in Article 83 (2) shall also be imposed on the corporation" in Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to the instant case, shall be deemed to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, the provision of the above Act shall retroactively lose 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 Decision 2004Do9037 Decided April 15, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992, etc.). Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.